Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">hg v the queen  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">sexual assault</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">expert evidence excluded under s 409b of crimes act 1900 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">whether evidence of prior sexual assault is evidence of prior sexual activity or experience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">whether s 409b applies only to evidence of consensual prior sexual activity or experience.  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">admissibility of expert opinion under evidence act 1995 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">expert opinion must be within field of specialised knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">whether expert opinion must be based on facts themselves admissible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">whether parts of opinion severable.  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">refusal to grant adjournment for purposes of calling expert evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">whether refusal constituted miscarriage of justice.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1062" id="cs0">TRADE PRACTICES --- misleading or deceptive conduct --- whether pleaded representations established by the evidence--- representations with respect to a future matter --- falsity --- reliance. EQUITY --- confidentiality --- whether information relating to C7's bid for the NRL pay television rights was confidential --- whether publication destroys confidentiality. Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 46A
 Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)
 Australian Communications and Media Authority (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2005 (Cth)
 Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) ss 6 , 12 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 28, 28A, 29 , 42, 53, 93, 96, 97, 99, 115, 117, 118, 122, 123, 124, 125, 131, 132, 139, 158, Sch 2 Pt 3 cl 7, Sch 2 Pt 6 cl 10, Sch 2 Pt 7 cl 11, Sch 4
 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Anti-Siphoning) Act 2005 (Cth) Sch 1, cl 1
 Broadcasting Services (Subscription Television Broadcasting) Amendment Act 1992 (Cth)
 Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Act (No 2) 2001 (Cth) Sch 1, cl 5
 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 21
 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B
 Radiocommunications Act 1992 (Cth) s 31
 Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth) s 7
 Telecommunications (Transitional Provision and Consequential Amendments) Act 1997 (Cth) s 39
 Television Broadcasting Services ( Digital Conversion) Act 1998 (Cth)
 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 4 , 4D, 4E, 4F, 4G, 4L, 4M, 6 , 45 , 45D, 45DA, 46 , 47 , 50 , 51A, 52 , 76 , 82 , 87, 87A, 87B, 88, 151AK, 152AA, 152AB, 152AC, 152AL, 152AR, 152CM
 Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 (Cth) Sch 17

 Statute of Uses 1535 (Imp)

 Federal Court Rules O 15A

 Adamson v New South Wales Rugby League Ltd [1991] FCA 425 ; (1991) 31 FCR 242
 AG Australia Holdings Ltd v Burton ; [2002] NSWSC 170 ; (2002) 58 NSWLR 464
 Akron Securities Ltd v Iliffe (1997) 41 NSWLR 353
 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Foxtel Digital Cable Television Pty Ltd (1996) 136 ALR 319
 Amoco Australia Pty Ltd v Rocca Bros Motor Engineering Co Ltd [1973] HCA 40 ; (1973) 133 CLR 288
 Apand Pty Ltd v The Kettle Chip Company Pty Ltd [1994] FCA 1370 ; (1994) 52 FCR 474
 ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) (1990) 27 FCR 460
 Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109
 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199
 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Amcor Printing Papers Group Ltd [2000] FCA 17 ; (2000) 169 ALR 344
 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd [2003] FCAFC 149 ; (2003) 129 FCR 339
 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Boral Ltd [2001] FCA 30 ; (2000) 106 FCR 328
 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 954 ; (1999) 92 FCR 375
 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 826 ; [2006] ATPR 42-123
 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Visy Paper Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1640 ; (2000) 186 ALR 731
 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Visy Paper Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1075 ; (2001) 112 FCR 37
 Australian Gas Light Co v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2003] FCA 1525 ; (2003) 137 FCR 317
 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich (Supreme Court of New South Wales, Austin J)
 Bateman's Bay Local Aboriginal Land Council v The Aboriginal Community Benefit Fund Pty Ltd [1998] HCA 49 ; (1998) 194 CLR 247
 Bell Group Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (Supreme Court of Western Australia, Owen J)
 Bill Acceptance Corporation Ltd v GWA Ltd [1983] FCA 269 ; (1983) 50 ALR 242
 Bitannia Pty Ltd v Parkline Constructions Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 238
 Boral Besser Masonry Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2003] HCA 5 ; (2003) 215 CLR 374
 Brandi v Mingot (1976) 12 ALR 551
 Bridge v Deacons [1984] AC 705
 Broome v Cassell  Co Ltd [1972] UKHL 3 ; [1972] AC 1027
 Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
 Buckley v Tutty [1971] HCA 71 ; (1971) 125 CLR 353
 Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 60 ; [2004] HCA 60 ; (2004) 218 CLR 592
 C7 Pty Ltd v Foxtel Management Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1864
 C7 Pty Ltd v Foxtel Management Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1189
 Carlton  United Breweries (NSW) Pty Ltd v Bond Brewing New South Wales Ltd (1987) 16 FCR 351
 Carson v John Fairfax  Sons Ltd [1993] HCA 31 ; (1993) 178 CLR 44
 Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd (1968) 1A IPR 587
 Commonwealth v John Fairfax  Sons Ltd [1980] HCA 44 ; (1980) 147 CLR 39
 Concrete Constructions Group Ltd v Litevale Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 670 ; (2002) 170 FLR 290
 Corrs Pavey Whiting  Byrne v Collector of Customs (Vic) [1987] FCA 266 ; (1987) 14 FCR 434
 Crabtree Vickers Pty Ltd v Australian Direct Mail Advertising and Addressing Co Pty Ltd [1975] HCA 49 ; (1975) 133 CLR 72
 CSR Ltd v Della Maddalena [2006] HCA 1 ; (2006) 224 ALR 1
 Customs and Excise Commissioners v A [2002] EWCA Civ 1039 ; [2003] 2 All ER 736
 Demagogue Pty Ltd v Ramensky [1992] FCA 557 ; (1992) 39 FCR 31
 Deta Nominees Pty Ltd v Viscount Plastic Products Pty Ltd [1979] VicRp 17 ; [1979] VR 167
 Devenish v Jewel Food Stores Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 7 ; (1991) 172 CLR 32
 Digi-Tech (Australia) Ltd v Brand [2004] NSWCA 58 ; (2004) 62 IPR 184
 Dowling v Dalgety Australia Ltd (1992) 34 FCR 109
 Duke Group Ltd (in liq) v Pilmer [1998] SASC 6529 ; (1998) 27 ACSR 1
 Duke Group Ltd (in liq) v Pilmer [1999] SASC 97 ; (1999) 73 SASR 64
 Duke Group Ltd (in liq) v Pilmer (No 2) [2000] SASC 418 ; (2000) 78 SASR 216
 Duke Group Ltd (in liq) v Pilmer (No 4) [2001] SASC 451
 Duke Group Ltd (in liq) v Pilmer (No 5) [2003] SASC 381 ; (2003) 87 SASR 325
 Duke Group Ltd (in liq) v Pilmer (No 6) [2004] SASC 147
 Eastern Express Pty Ltd v General Newspapers Pty Ltd (1992) 35 FCR 43
 Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Harper's Garage (Stourport) Ltd [1967] UKHL 1 ; [1968] AC 269
 Expectation Pty Ltd v PRD Realty Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 189 ; (2004) 140 FCR 17
 Flack v Chairperson, National Crime Authority (1997) 80 FCR 137
 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22 ; (2003) 214 CLR 118
 Foxeden Pty Ltd v IOOF Building Society Ltd [2003] VSC 356
 Foxtel Cable Television Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (1997) 73 FCR 429
 Foxtel Management Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2000] FCA 589 ; (2000) 173 ALR 362
 Foxtel Management Pty Ltd v Seven Cable Television Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1159 ; (2000) 102 FCR 464
 Foxtel Management Pty Ltd v Seven Cable Television Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1161 ; (2000) 102 FCR 555
 Frontier Touring Co Pty Ltd v Rodgers (2005) 223 ALR 422
 Futuretronics International Pty Ltd v Gadzhis [1992] VicRp 63 ; [1992] 2 VR 217
 Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 1
 Global Sportsman Pty Ltd v Mirror Newspapers Pty Ltd [1984] FCA 180 ; (1984) 2 FCR 82
 Gould v Vaggelas [1985] HCA 85 ; (1985) 157 CLR 215
 Gray v Motor Accident Commission [1998] HCA 70 ; (1998) 196 CLR 1
 Hecar Investments No 6 Pty Ltd v Outboard Marine Australia Pty Ltd [1982] FCA 118 ; (1982) 62 FLR 159
 Henjo Investments Pty Ltd v Collins Marrickville Pty Ltd (No 1) [1988] FCA 40 ; (1988) 39 FCR 546
 Heydon v NRMA Ltd [2000] NSWCA 374 ; (2000) 51 NSWLR 1
 Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Australian Rugby Union Ltd [2001] FCA 1040 ; (2001) 110 FCR 157 at 191
 HTW Valuers (Central Qld) Pty Ltd v Astonland Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 54 ; [2004] HCA 54 ; (2004) 217 CLR 640
 Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association (Inc) (1986) 19 FCR 10
 I  L Securities Pty Ltd v HTW Valuers (Brisbane) Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 41 ; (2002) 210 CLR 109
 ICT Pty Ltd v Sea Containers Ltd (1995) 39 NSWLR 640
 Inn Leisure Industries Pty Ltd v D F McCloy Pty Ltd (No 1) (1991) 28 FCR 151
 Jango v Northern Territory (2006) 152 FCR 150
 Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8 ; (1959) 101 CLR 298
 Lennon v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Twist [1978] FSR 573
 Lindner v Murdock's Garage [1950] HCA 48 ; (1950) 83 CLR 628
 LMI Australasia Pty Ltd v Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 886
 LMI Australasia Pty Ltd v Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 74
 Luna Park (NSW) Pty Ltd v Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd [1938] HCA 66 ; (1938) 61 CLR 286
 Marks v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd [1998] HCA 69 ; (1998) 196 CLR 494
 Mayne Nickless Ltd v Multigroup Distribution Services Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1620 ; (2001) 114 FCR 108
 Meehan v Jones [1982] HCA 52 ; (1982) 149 CLR 571
 Melway Publishing Pty Ltd v Robert Hicks Pty Ltd (2001) 205 CLR 1
 Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v Securities Commission [1995] UKPC 5 ; [1995] 2 AC 500
 Monroe Topple  Associates Pty Ltd v Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia (2002) 122 FCR 110
 Murphy v Overton Investments Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 3 ; (2004) 216 CLR 388
 New South Wales v Ibbett [2006] HCA 57 ; (2006) 231 ALR 485
 News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League Ltd [1996] FCA 870 ; (1996) 64 FCR 410
 News Ltd v South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2003] HCA 45 ; (2003) 215 CLR 563
 Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co Ltd [1894] AC 535
 NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power and Water Authority [2004] HCA 48 ; (2004) 219 CLR 90
 O'Donnell v Reichard [1975] VicRp 89 ; [1975] VR 916
 Pacific Brands Sport  Leisure Pty Ltd v Underworks Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 40 ; (2006) 149 FCR 395
 Pacific Carriers Ltd v BMP Paribas [2004] HCA 35 ; (2004) 218 CLR 451
 Park v Brothers [2005] HCA 73 ; (2005) 222 ALR 421
 Peters (WA) Ltd v Petersville Ltd [2001] HCA 45 ; (2001) 205 CLR 126
 Peters American Delicacy Co Ltd v Patricia's Chocolates and Candies Pty Ltd [1947] HCA 62 ; (1947) 77
CLR 574
 Pilmer v Duke Group Ltd (in liq) [2001] HCA 31 ; (2001) 207 CLR 165
 Quadramain Pty Ltd v Sevastopol Investments Pty Ltd [1976] HCA 10 ; (1976) 133 CLR 390
 Queensland Cooperative Milling Association v Pamag Pty Ltd [1973] HCA 24 ; (1973) 133 CLR 260
 Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1989] HCA 6 ; (1989) 167 CLR 177
 Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Stereo FM Pty Ltd [1982] FCA 206 ; (1982) 44 ALR 557
 Re AGL Cooper Basin Natural Gas Supply Arrangements [1997] ATPR 41-593
 Re Application by Concrete Carters Association (Victoria) (1977) 31 FLR 193
 Re Queensland Co-operative Milling Association Ltd (1976) 25 FLR 169
 Re Tooth  Co Ltd and Tooheys Ltd (1979) 39 FLR 1
 Roadshow Entertainment Pty Ltd v (ACN 053 006 269) Pty Ltd [1997] NSWSC 473 ; (1997) 42 NSWLR 462
 RPS v The Queen [2000] HCA 3 ; (2000) 199 CLR 620
 Rural Press Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2002] FCAFC 213 ; (2002) 118 FCR 236
 Rural Press Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2003] HCA 75 ; (2003) 216 CLR 53
 Schellenberg v Tunnel Holdings Pty Ltd [2000] HCA 18 ; (1999) 200 CLR 121
 Secured Income Real Estate (Australia) Ltd v St Martins Investments Pty Ltd [1979] HCA 51 ; (1979) 144 CLR 596
 Seven Cable Television Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd (2000) 171 ALR 89
 Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd (No 1) [2003] FCA 388
 Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd (No 14) [2006] FCA 500
 Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd (No 15) [2006] FCA 515
 Shop Distributive  Allied Employees Association v Minister for Industrial Affairs (SA) (1995) 183 CLR 552
 Singapore Airlines Ltd v Taprobane Tours WA Pty Ltd [1991] FCA 621 ; (1991) 33 FCR 158
 Smith Kline  French Laboratories (Australia) Ltd v Secretary, Department of Community Services and Health [1989] FCA 384 ; (1990) 95 ALR 87
 Socit d'Avances Commerciales v Merchants' Marine Insurance Co (The "Palitana") (1924) 20 Lloyd's Rep 140
 SportsVision Australia Pty Ltd v Tallglen Pty Ltd (1998) 145 FLR 308
 SportsVision Australia Pty Ltd v Tallglen Ltd (1998) 44 NSWLR 103
 SST Consulting Services Pty Ltd v Rieson [2006] HCA 31 ; (2006) 225 CLR 516
 State Trading Corporation of India Ltd v M Golodetz Ltd [1989] 2 Lloyd's Rep 277
 Stirling Harbour Services Pty Ltd v Bunbury Port Authority [2000] FCA 1381 ; [2000] ATPR 41-783
 Stokely-Van Camp Inc v New Generation Beverages Pty Ltd (1998) 44 NSWLR 607
 SWF Hoists and Industrial Equipment Pty Ltd v State Government Insurance Commission [1990] ATPR 41-045
 Sykes v Reserve Bank of Australia (1998) 88 FCR 511
 Telstra Corporation Ltd v Seven Cable Television Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1160 ; (2000) 102 FCR 517
 Tillmanns Butcheries Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union [1979] FCA 85 ; (1979) 27 ALR 367
 Ting v Blanche [1993] FCA 524 ; (1993) 118 ALR 543
 Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd v Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc ( [1992] FCA 630 ; 1992) 38 FCR 1
 Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd v Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc (No 2) [1993] FCA 83 ; (1993) 41 FCR 89
 Trade Practices Commission v Milreis Pty Ltd (1977) 29 FLR 144
 Trade Practices Commission v TNT Management Pty Ltd (1985) 6 FCR 1
 Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd v Luna Park (NSW) Ltd (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 632
 United States v E I du Pont de Nemours  Co [1956] USSC 87 ; 351 US 377 (1956)
 Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2003] FCAFC 193 ; (2003) 131 FCR 529
 Upper Hunter County District Council v Australian Chilling and Freezing Co Ltd [1968] HCA 8 ; (1968) 118 CLR 429
 Uren v John Fairfax  Sons Ltd [1966] HCA 40 ; (1966) 117 CLR 118
 Vancouver Malt and Sake Brewing Co Ltd v Vancouver Breweries Ltd [1934] AC 181
 Visy Paper Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2003] HCA 59 ; (2003) 216 CLR 1
 West v Government Insurance Office (1981) 148 CLR 63
 Western Australia v Ward [2000] FCA 191 ; (2000) 99 FCR 316
 Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon [2003] HCA 48 ; (2003) 200 ALR 447
 Whitfield v De Lauret  Co Ltd [1920] HCA 75 ; (1920) 29 CLR 71
 Willis v Commonwealth [1946] HCA 22 ; [1946] HCA 22 ; (1946) 73 CLR 105
 Wright v TNT Management Pty Ltd (1989) 15 NSWLR 679

Areeda P and Kaplow L, Antitrust Analysis (4th ed, Little, Brown  Co, 1988)
Australian Psychological Society, Guidelines Relating to Recovered Memories (2000)
Brunt M, '"Market Definition"' Issues in Australian and New Zealand Trade Practices Litigation' (1990) 18 ABLR 86
Butler D and Rodrick S, Australian Media Law (2nd ed, Lawbook Co, 2003)
Heydon JD, Cross on Evidence (6th Aust ed, Butterworths, 2000)
Heydon JD, Cross on Evidence (7th Aust ed, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2004)
Heydon JD, The Restraint of Trade Doctrine (2nd ed, Butterworths, 1999)
Heydon JD, Trade Practices Law (Lawbook Co, subscription service)
Hovenkamp H, The Antitrust Enterprise: Principle and Execution (Harvard University Press, 2005)
Kaysen C and Turner D, Antitrust Policy (1959)
McLellan P, 'Who Is Telling the Truth? Psychology, Common Sense and the Law' (2006) 80 ALJ 655
Meagher RP, Heydon JD, Leeming MJ, Meagher, Gummow and Lehane's Equity: Doctrines and Remedies (4 th ed, Butterworths LexisNexis, 2002)
Neale AD, The Antitrust Laws of the United States of America (2nd ed, Cambridge University Press, 1970)
Seddon NC and Ellinghaus MP, Cheshire and Fifoot's Law of Contract (8th Aust ed, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2002)
Wigmore JH, Wigmore on Evidence (3rd ed, Little, Brown  Co, 1940)

 SEVEN NETWORK LIMITED and ANOR v NEWS LIMITED and ORS
 NSD 1223 of 2002

 SACKVILLE J
 27 JULY 2007
 SYDNEY
 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
 NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1223 of 2002

 BETWEEN: SEVEN NETWORK LIMITED
 First Applicant

 C7 PTY LIMITED
 Second Applicant AND: NEWS LIMITED
 First Respondent

 SKY CABLE PTY LIMITED
 Second Respondent

 TELSTRA MEDIA PTY LIMITED
 Third Respondent

 FOXTEL MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED
 Fourth Respondent

 TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
 Fifth Respondent

 TELSTRA MULTIMEDIA PTY LIMITED
 Sixth Respondent

 PUBLISHING AND BROADCASTING LIMITED
 Seventh Respondent

 NINE NETWORK AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
 Eighth Respondent

 PREMIER MEDIA GROUP PTY LIMITED
 Ninth Respondent

 AUSTRALIAN RUGBY FOOTBALL LEAGUE LIMITED
 Twelfth Respondent

 NATIONAL RUGBY LEAGUE INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED
 Thirteenth Respondent

 NATIONAL RUGBY LEAGUE LIMITED
 Fourteenth Respondent

 FOXTEL CABLE TELEVISION PTY LIMITED
 Fifteenth Respondent

 OPTUS VISION PTY LIMITED
 Sixteenth Respondent

 AUSTAR UNITED COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED
 Seventeenth Respondent

 AUSTAR ENTERTAINMENT PTY LIMITED
 Eighteenth Respondent

 IAN HUNTLY PHILIP
 Nineteenth Respondent

 NEWS PAY TV PTY LIMITED
 Twentieth Respondent

 PBL PAY TV PTY LIMITED
 Twenty-First Respondent

 SINGTEL OPTUS PTY LIMITED
 Twenty-Second Respondent

 OPTUS VISION PTY LTD
 First Cross Claimant

 SINGTEL OPTUS PTY LIMITED
 Second Cross Claimant

 SEVEN NETWORK LIMITED
 First Cross Respondent

 C7 PTY LIMITED
 Second Cross Respondent
 JUDGE: SACKVILLE J DATE OF ORDER: 27 JULY 2007 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

 THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

 1. Optus, on or before 24 August 2007, file and serve draft Short Minutes of Order disposing of the Cross-Claim. As events transpired, the statements made by 33 lay witnesses were admitted into evidence. Of these witnesses, 28 were cross-examined, while the makers of the remaining five statements were not required for cross-examination. • I rejected two ' expert ' reports tendered on behalf of Seven, amounting in all to 529 pages: Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd (No 14) [2006] FCA 500 (rejecting the tender of a report by Mr Salter valuing Seven's lost opportunity to become an ' integrated media company' ); Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd (No 15) [2006] FCA 515 (rejecting the tender of a report by Mr Kinsella discussing ' subscription drivers ' for pay television). These rulings relieved the Respondents from the need to call the authors of reports, comprising some 111 pages, replying to Mr Salter and Mr Kinsella. In addition, the Respondents chose not to tender a further three expert reports that had been filed.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l1">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 76 The opinion rule</title>
<title id="l2">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 79 Exception: opinions based on specialised knowledge</title>
<title id="l3">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 135 General discretion to exclude evidence</title>
<title id="l4">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 </title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 43 Costs</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 50 Prohibition of publication of evidence etc.</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l4">ENERGY SERVICES CORPORATIONS ACT 1995 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2003] FCA 862">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2003] FCA 862">disclaimed property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2003] FCA 862">property of bankrupt burdened with onerous covenants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2003] FCA 862">registered mortgagee entitled to vesting order under s 133(9)  bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2003] FCA 862">power of court to convert joint tenancy to tenancy in common in conjunction with s 133(9) vesting order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 937">corporations [255]</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 937">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 937">disclaimer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 937">contaminated oil</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 937">extent of power to vest disclaimed property.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 960">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 960">does recourse to guarantee survive liquidator's disclaimer of contract guaranteed taking into account s568d(1) of the corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 960">effectiveness of disclaimer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 960">meaning of "unprofitable contract"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 960">challenge to disclaimer on basis of disproportionate prejudice.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1066">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1066">disclaimer of real property under s 133 of bankruptcy act 1966 (cth) for onerous covenants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1066">application for order under s 133(9) vesting property in mortgagee subject to conditions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1066">whether land escheats to crown in right of state of new south wales after disclaimer by trustee in bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1066">historical and doctrinal basis of escheat</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1066">consistency of doctrine of escheat with torrens title land, statutory powers of disclaimer and constitutional context</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1066">effect of disclaimer occurring under commonwealth law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1066">whether land vests in the crown in right of the commonwealth or the state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 1066">better view may be that land does not escheat upon disclaimer, rather the legal title is held by the crown on trust for statutory purposes until the court makes an order vesting it pursuant to s 133(9)    real property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 1066">disclaimer of real property for onerous covenants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 1066">torrens title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 1066">whether land escheats to crown in right of state of new south wales after disclaimer by trustee in bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 1066">historical and doctrinal basis of escheat   mortgages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 1066">disclaimer of real property under s 133 of bankruptcy act 1966 (cth) for onerous covenants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">citing from="[2009] FCA 1066">position of registered mortgagee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">citing from="[2009] FCA 1066">realisation of mortgagee's security to repay debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">citing from="[2009] FCA 1066">whether land escheats to crown in right of state of new south wales after disclaimer by trustee in bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">citing from="[2009] FCA 1066">mortgagee's right to apply for order vesting fee simple in the property the subject of the mortgage in it following disclaimer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">citing from="[2009] FCA 1066">appropriate terms and conditions of vesting order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2007] WASC 75">stay of execution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2007] WASC 75">judgment for possession of land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2007] WASC 75">mortgagee's action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2007] WASC 75">joint tenancy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2007] WASC 75">one of two joint tenants bankrupt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2007] WASC 75">disclaimer of bankrupt's interest by trustee in bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2007] WASC 75">effect of disclaimer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2007] WASC 75">need for vesting order under s 133(9) of bankruptcy act 1966 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2007] WASC 24">stay of execution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2007] WASC 24">judgment for possession of land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2007] WASC 24">property seizure order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2007] WASC 24">mortgagee's action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2007] WASC 24">claim for time to redeem mortgage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2007] WASC 24">effect of subsequent encumbrances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2007] WASC 24">proceedings under the family law act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">citing from="[2007] WASC 24">whether res judicata or issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">citing from="[2007] WASC 24">effect of order under family law act where mortgagee not joined as party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">citing from="[2007] WASC 24">whether payment into court of balance due under mortgage a condition of relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">citing from="[2007] WASC 24">difference between relief to restrain power of sale and a stay of an order for possession</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">citing from="[2007] WASC 24">inadequate stamping of security document</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">citing from="[2007] WASC 24">dispute over costs added to mortgage debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">citing from="[2007] WASC 24">joint tenancy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">citing from="[2007] WASC 24">other joint owner of mortgaged premises fraudulently granting subsequent charges over jointly owned property by forging the applicant's signature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">citing from="[2007] WASC 24">caveators relying upon forged charges to claim subsequent interests in the land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">citing from="[2007] WASC 24">other joint tenant bankrupt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">citing from="[2007] WASC 24">disclaimer of bankrupt's interest by trustee in bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">citing from="[2007] WASC 24">effect of disclaimer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">citing from="[2007] WASC 24">need for vesting order under s 133(9) of bankruptcy act</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1066" id="cs0">The position identified by Jessel MR was accepted as correct in relation to disclaimers by liquidators and trustees in bankruptcy in a series of Australian cases decided prior to the enactment of ss 13H and 13J of the RP Act , and collected by Bowen CJ in Eq in Re Middle Harbour Investments Ltd and the Companies Act [1977] 2 NSWLR 652 at 662A-G, see too at 662G-664G; and Needham J in Re Tulloch Ltd 3 ACLR at 812-813 (followed by Madgwick J in In the Matter of Woo; National Australia Bank v Leroy [2003] FCA 862 at [10] ); see too the discussions by Napier CJ in Ex parte Cleland  Teesdale Smith [1960] SASR 199 at 209, Bryson J in Sandhurst Trustees Ltd v 72 Seventh Street Nominees Pty Ltd (in liq) (1998) 45 NSWLR 556 at 563B-566A (who did discuss ss 13H and 13J) and by EM Heenan J in Rams Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Skipworth (No 2) [2007] WASC 75 ; (2007) 239 ALR 799 at 800-802 [6] - [11]. In Re Condobolin Bila CDEP Ltd (deregistered); Commonwealth v New South Wales [2006] FCA 1330 ; (2006) 59 ACSR 682 , Gyles J held that where land had been purchased by a company using grant moneys from a Commonwealth body that later was wound up and the liquidator disclaimed the land, it should be ordered pursuant to s 568F of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to vest in the Commonwealth, the State having submitted to any order the Court might make. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] WASC 75" id="cs1">8 In these instances of statutory disclaimer, it is accepted that disclaimed land escheats to the Crown: Re Mercer and Moore (1880) 14 Ch D 287 , per Jessel MR at 295 - 296; Re Levy (1881) 17 Ch D 746 , per Jessel MR at 753; Attorney-General (Ontario) v Mercer ( supra ) per Selborne LC at 772; Re Middle Harbour Investments Ltd (In Liq) [1977] 2 NSWLR 652 per Bowen CJ in Eq at 662; Re Tulloch Ltd (In Liq) (1978) 3 ACLR 808 per Needham J at 812 - 813; Re Weiland (Dec) (1945) 13 ABC 220 per Clyne J at 225; cf. Re Lasscock (1961) 18 ABC 263 per Paine J at 271. This overlooks the possibility of land reverting to a mesne lord if it were held of a mesne lord: Williams T C, "The Fundamental Principles of the Present Law of Ownership of Land" (1931) 75 The Solicitors' Journal 843 at 846; however, since the process of subinfeudation was abolished prior to settlement, this apparent oversight is of no consequence in any of the Australian States or Territories: Re Middle Harbour Investments Ltd (In Liq) ( supra ) per Bowen CJ in Eq at 662. In Australia, disclaimed land will escheat to the Crown in right of the State which originally granted the land. For this reason, in both Sandhurst Trustees Ltd v 72 Seventh Street Nominees Pty Ltd (In Liq) (1998) 45 NSWLR 556 at 561 and Re Condobolin Bila CDEP Ltd (deregistered) [2006] FCA 1330 ; (2006) 59 ACSR 682 at 684, the State of New South Wales was made a party to the actions on the basis that it had an interest in the land upon escheat. Such an escheat occurs automatically upon the occurrence of the event which causes it (for example, the disclaimer). Thus an order for escheat made under s 7 of the Escheat (Procedure) Act 1940 (WA) is declaratory in effect, and confirms rather than brings about the particular escheat.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] WASC 24" id="cs2">82 Upon the notice of disclaimer being given by the trustee of Mr Skipworth's interest in the land all his right, title and interest in the land terminated (without affecting the mortgagee's interest). Mrs Skipworth remains as the owner of a one undivided half share as tenant in common but, in the absence of a vesting order made under s 133(9) of the Bankruptcy Act , Mr Skipworth's interest will revert or escheat to the Crown: Re Mercer  Moore (1880) 14 Ch D 287 and Re Tulloch Ltd (1978) 3 ACLR 808 per Needham J SCNSW. No submissions were made about such a reversion or escheat. The authorities suggest that such a reversion or escheat would be to the Crown in the right of the State rather than the Commonwealth and this would appear to be consistent with the original sovereignty of the State over all land within its boundaries not specifically acquired by the Commonwealth: see Commonwealth v New South Wales [2006] FCA 1330 and Re Woo; National Australia Bank v Leroy [2003] FCA 862 at [5] .</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT 2005 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 568 Disclaimer by liquidator; application to Court by party to contract</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 568F Court may dispose of disclaimed property</title>
<title id="l4">ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER COMMISSION ACT 1989 </title>
<title id="l5">ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER COMMISSION ACT 1989 No. 150 of 1989 - SECT 14 Grants of interests in property</title>
<title id="l6">ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER COMMISSION ACT 1989 No. 150 of 1989 - SECT 20 Grants and loans to be repayable where conditions breached etc.</title>
<title id="l7">ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER COMMISSION ACT 1989 No. 150 of 1989 - SECT 21 Restriction on right to dispose of property</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
<title id="l9">REAL PROPERTY ACT 1900 </title>
<title id="l10">REAL PROPERTY ACT 1900 - SECT 138 Court may direct cancellation of folios and other actions related to folios</title>
<title id="l11">Companies Act 1961 No 71 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 921">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 921">creditor's statutory demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 921">application under s 459g of the corporations act 2001 (cth) ("the act") to set aside statutory demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 921">plaintiff asserts payment of debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 921">sufficient evidence to establish genuine dispute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 73">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 73">costs follow the event</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 73">uniform civil procedure rules r 42.1</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 73">where neither party wholly or substantially successful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 73">proportionate costsde facto relationships</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 73">adjustment of interests in property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 73">treatment of initial contributions to a relationship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 73">[iproperty (relationships) act/i] 1984 s 20words  phrases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 73">"the event"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 482">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 482">review of decision of registrar of federal court to reregister a company pursuant to s 601ah</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 482">whether plaintiffs were persons aggrieved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 482">whether it was just to reinstate the company. held: the plaintiffs are persons aggrieved by deregistration of the company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 482">first plaintiff aggrieved because of potential liability under s 188 of corporations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 482">second plaintiff aggrieved because as sole shareholder of deregistered company it stands to lose benefits of litigation commenced in another court. held : the review is a hearing de novo</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 482">having regard to all the circumstances including how the company's registration lapsed; the party seeking reinstatement; the reasons for seeking reinstatement; the utility of reinstatement; and any prejudice to any parties; it was just for the company to be reinstated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 482">application for review dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1722">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1722">consideration of an application to set aside service of a statutory demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1722">consideration of whether the plaintiff applicant has complied with the requirements of s 459g(3) of the corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1722">consideration of the requirements of strict compliance in relation to service of an affidavit in support of an application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1722">consideration of the distinction between exhibits and annexures</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1722">consideration of the application of the decision of the full court of the supreme court of western australia in robowash pty ltd v robowash finance pty ltd (2000-2001) 158 flr 338.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1358">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1358">defendant's employment as managing director of plaintiff terminated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1358">defendant served statutory demand on plaintiff</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1358">proceedings commenced in supreme court of victoria for unlawful dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1358">whether statutory demand should be set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1358">whether fact that proceedings in supreme court claim same alleged debts is evidence of genuine dispute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1358">whether plaintiff has offsetting claims against defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1358">whether solicitor-client costs should be awarded practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 1358">upon termination plaintiff presented defendant with settlement agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 1358">defendant seeks to put agreement into evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 1358">whether privilege waived because handing over of settlement agreement instantaneous with commencement of dispute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 1358">whether agreement was created to negotiate a settlement of dispute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 560">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 560">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 560">statutory demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 560">application to set aside on grounds of genuine dispute and offsetting claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 560">graywinter principle precludes case based on genuine dispute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 560">whether offsetting claim where agent alleged to have received secret profits from clients of principal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 560">quantification of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 560">the "not fanciful" requirement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 159">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 159">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 159">o 62 r 46 of the federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 159">taxing officer's estimate of costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 159">notice of objection filed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 159">application for waiver of security for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 159">whether discretion to waive payment should be exercised procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 159">nature of appeal from registrar</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 159">whether rehearing or hearing de novo is required procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 159">allegation of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 159">no evidence of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 411">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 411">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 411">application to have statutory demand set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 411">low threshhold applicable in such cases discussed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 411">demand set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1997] FCA 681">[ database search ] [ name search ] [ recent decisions ] [ noteup ] [ lawcite ] [ help ] spencer constructions pty ltd v g  m aldridge pty ltd [1997] fca 681 (29 july 1997)   corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1997] FCA 681">insolvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1997] FCA 681">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1997] FCA 681">application to set aside statutory demand to pay debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1997] FCA 681">consideration of s 459j</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1997] FCA 681">defects in relation to the demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1997] FCA 681">distinguished from defects in the demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1997] FCA 681">substantial injustice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1997] FCA 681">some other reason</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1997] FCA 681">affidavit accompanying demand served in nsw complied with form specified in rules of supreme court of victoria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1997] FCA 681">whether defect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1997] FCA 681">whether sufficient that affidavit complies with the rules of any court having jurisdiction in respect of the demand or winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1997] FCA 681">whether genuine dispute about existence of debt.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2010] VSC 288">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2010] VSC 288">statutory demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2010] VSC 288">application to set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2010] VSC 288">claim of genuine dispute about existence of debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2010] VSC 288">claim that "some other reason" why the demand should be set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2010] VSC 288">whether demand specified a fixed sum payable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2010] VSC 288">whether amount payable sufficiently verified</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2010] VSC 288">corporations act 2001 (cth) ss 459g , 459h , 459j</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 251">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 251">application to set aside statutory demand under s 459g corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 251">where amount of demand is not disputed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 251">whether plaintiffs have genuine offsetting claims against admitted debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 251">offsetting claims reformulated following adjournment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 251">arguable offsetting claims exceed admitted debt.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] VSC 288" id="cs0">29 Although it is not the function of the Court on an application to set aside a statutory demand to resolve contested questions of fact or determine where the merits lie in any contest, [24] the Court must have regard to the bank evidence in considering whether a genuine dispute has been shown.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 251" id="cs1">Provision of evidence to substantiate the quantum of the alleged offsetting claim also serves a further purpose. Consideration of that evidence enables the Court to assess, as it must, whether the claim is "genuine", i.e. a claim that is bona fide and truly exists in fact based on grounds that are real, and not spurious, hypothetical, illusory or misconceived: Spencer Constructions Pty Ltd v G  M Aldridge Pty Ltd [1997] FCA 681 ; (1997) 76 FCR 452 at 464. The same test applies in ascertaining the existence of an offsetting claim: West International Pty Ltd v Ultradrilling Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1443 ; (2008) 68 ACSR 108 at [9] . </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 459H Determination of application where there is a dispute or offsetting claim</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 459J Setting aside demand on other grounds</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 35A Powers of Registrars</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">application for extension of time to lodge application under administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">decision to "stand-down" employees following declarations under s.43a of the telecommunications act 1975</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">principles relevant to granting extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">undue delay.  administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 , s.11  telecommunications act 1975 , s.43a  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">application for extension of time to lodge application under administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">decision to "stand down" employees following declarations under s. 43a of the telecommunications act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">principles relevant to granting extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">undue delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">relevance of public interest and prejudice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 11</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">telecommunications act 1975 (cth), s. 43a. during a period of industrial dispute the respondent "stood down" certain employees and made directions under s. 43a of the telecommunications act 1975 (cth) that those employees should not be paid their salary for the relevant period. following the end of the dispute the applicants' union commenced inquiries and sought legal advice as to the validity of the order to "stand down". the applicants gave no notice to the respondent of any intention to bring proceedings. the applications for extension of time (within which to lodge applications for orders to review) were lodged about eighteen months after the "stand down" orders.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 54" id="cs0">68 The relevant passage from his Honour's judgment (in Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink [2008] FCA 1879) was as follows (at [16]):
 I have been unable to identify any provision in any of the Acts to which Ms Luck referred in her application which empowered the second respondent or any of her delegates to make any of the impugned decisions. Nor is there any evidence that the Second Respondent or a delegate of the second respondent had, in fact, made any of the impugned decisions. She is not a necessary party to the proceeding and she should be removed as a party. I will so order.  54 The primary Judge dismissed the appellant's application for an extension of time in which to seek review of the decisions made on 31 July 2006 and 10 August 2007, the alleged failure to review the 10 August 2007 decision, and the conduct relating to the making of the two decisions mentioned. His Honour's reasons are found at Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink [2008] FCA 1879. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 11 Manner of making applications</title>
<title id="l2">PUBLIC SERVICE ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1589">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1589">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1589">section 422b of the migration act not applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1589">whether lack of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1589">whether failure by the tribunal to take relevant considerations into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1589">whether tribunal misunderstood applicant's claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1589">whether tribunal acted unreasonably, drew inferences that were not available, misapplied the test for well-founded fear, asked a wrong question or erred in the manner in which it used independent information.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1589" id="cs0">The Tribunal as reconstituted (T 2 ) held a further Tribunal hearing. The applicant's migration agent submitted country information and other documents in support of the applicant's claims. By decision of 7 July 2006 T 2 affirmed the decision of the delegate of the first respondent. The applicant again sought judicial review. On appeal from this Court Branson J of the Federal Court of Australia made orders quashing the second Tribunal decision and again remitting the matter for redetermination (see Applicant S1983 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 854). It is that reconsideration that is the subject of these proceedings.  The affidavit of Associate Professor Jayaraman was admitted into evidence in the proceedings before Branson J in the Federal Court (see Applicant S1983 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 854) in relation to the distinction between the concepts of Sindhi and Dalit. Professor Jayaraman attested to his experience, evidence and independence and the fact that he had been asked to be an " expert witness. " Branson J had regard to this evidence in finding that the previous Tribunal (T 2 ) had proceeded on the basis that it was essentially the same to be a Sindhi and a Dalit when this was not the case and hence that it had misunderstood and so failed properly to deal with the claims advanced by the applicant (at [53]). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l1">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 144 Matters of common knowledge</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 27 Evidence on appeal</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 91 Order of dealing with visas</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 91R Persecution</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FMCA 197">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FMCA 197">application for judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FMCA 197">consideration of alleged jurisdictional errors.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">appeal from decision of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether refugee review tribunal failed to comply with s 424a of the migration act 1958 (cth) in respect of provision of information to appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether tribunal asked wrong question or applied wrong test in considering claim of fear of persecution on religious grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether tribunal denied appellant procedural fairness having regard to the manner of examination of independent country information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">lapse of time between entry into australia and bringing of application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">consideration of s 91r(3)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">where appellant converted to christianity while in australia practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">leave to amend notice of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether respondents prejudiced by granting of leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether exceptional circumstances required to be shown by appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether allowance to be granted by the court to permit recently published judgments to be understood and applied by legal profession</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">grounds not raised before federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 464">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 464">application for review of decision of the migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 464">application for subclass 820 (spouse) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 464">criteria for determining spousal relationship under reg 1.15a of the migration regulations 1994 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 464">living together for six months or more to be taken as strong evidence of genuine and continuing relationship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 464">creation of statutory presumption</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 464">insufficient evidence of social recognition of relationship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 464">insufficient evidence of joint financial obligations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 464">alleged jurisdictional error by tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 464">failure to take evidence of living together for six months or more as strong evidence of marital relationship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 464">denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 464">legitimate expectation that tribunal would give weight to statements not in the form of statutory declarations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2005] FCA 464">applicant not informed that statements would be given no weight nor given opportunity to present statements in form acceptable to tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2005] FCA 464">tribunal free to determine strength of and weight given to other evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2005] FCA 464">no jurisdictional error or error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2005] FCA 464">no failure of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[2005] FCA 464">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">reliance on 'country information'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether tribunal can use such information in assessing credit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether such information the sole basis for tribunal's findings as to credit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">tribunal's duty to look at reasonably foreseeable future</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether subsequent developments can be relied on to vitiate tribunal's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether sufficient opportunity to deal with country information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether tribunal biased</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application to review decisions of minister's delegates refusing claim for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application of chan v minister for immigration and ethnic affairs [1989] hca 62 ; (1989) 169 clr 379</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">'real chance' of persecution test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">whether delegates failed properly to consider real chance of persecution.   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">decisions as to 'refugee status'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">proper role of reviewing court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">administrative law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">decision of administrative character made under enactment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">conduct engaged in for purpose of making decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">review of decisions and conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">ambit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss. 3 , 5 , 6 .  broadcasting and television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">commercial broadcasting licences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">australian broadcasting tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">power to suspend or revoke licence if satisfied that licensee no longer fit and proper person to hold licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">controller of licensee not fit and proper person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">whether licensee fit and proper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">conduct before commencement of licence period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">broadcasting act 1942 (cth), s. 88.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1440">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1440">scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1440">approval corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1440">scheme of arrangement approved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1440">exemption sought from compliance with s 411(11) of corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2003] WASC 19">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2003] WASC 19">scheme of arrangement application for meetings of creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2003] WASC 19">factors for consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2003] WASC 19">foreign creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2003] WASC 19">contracts governed by foreign law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2003] WASC 19">ancillary proceedings in the united states</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2003] WASC 19">power to restrain scheme creditors under s 411(16) of c orporations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2003] WASC 19">abridgement of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2003] WASC 19">approval of the schemes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2003] WASC 18">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2003] WASC 18">scheme of arrangement application for meetings of creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2003] WASC 18">factors for consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2003] WASC 18">foreign creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2003] WASC 18">contracts governed by foreign law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2003] WASC 18">ancillary proceedings in the united states</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2003] WASC 18">power to restrain scheme creditors under s 411(16) of c orporations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2003] WASC 18">abridgement of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2003] WASC 18">approval of the schemes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2000] VSC 337">corporations law , ss.92, 109h, 109j(4), 411, 700, 703, 706, 707, 708, 741, 1030 (former section) and 1319. corporate law economic reform programme act 1999</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2000] VSC 337">insertion of amended ss.707 and 708 in the corporations law scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2000] VSC 337">merger</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2000] VSC 337">disclosure obligations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2000] VSC 337">dispensation from disclosure under trustee stock scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2000] VSC 337">power of asic to require disclosure.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 408">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 408">schemes of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 408">approval hearing and role of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 408">conditions for approval and/or undertakings or representations to asic or the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 408">scope of misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to information memorandum disclosure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 408">applicable legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 408">representations by silence on matters of opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 408">relevance of complexity of scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 408">future events, matters of opinion and onus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 408">any need to disclose contrary expert opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 408">differences between company's and expert's opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 408">integrity and reliability of voting procedures</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 408">extent of appraisal of fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 408">application of gambotto principles to scheme and to subsequent demutualisation steps governed by pt 2b.7 of corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 408">prior asset transfers not breach of fiduciary duty or oppressive.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2000] VSC 157">corporations law , ss.411, 412</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2000] VSC 157">court order to convene a meeting of shareholders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2000] VSC 157">consideration and approval of a scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2000] VSC 157">corporation rules , orders 1.3, 2.3, 3.4, 2.15 and 16.6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2000] VSC 157">dispensation from compliance in part from the rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2000] VSC 157">certification by a master</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2000] VSC 157">corporations regulations , reg. 5.6 and 9.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2000] VSC 21">scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2000] VSC 21">duties of directors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2000] VSC 21">purpose of scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2000] VSC 21">disclosure of information to shareholders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2000] VSC 21">opposition to scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2000] VSC 21">opposition unfounded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2000] VSC 21">approval of scheme.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2010] VSC 554">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2010] VSC 554">schemes of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2010] VSC 554">approval of scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2010] VSC 554">discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2010] VSC 554">corporations act 2001 (cth) ss 411 (11), 411 (12) and 411 (17).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2010] VSC 534">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2010] VSC 534">schemes of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2010] VSC 534">approval of scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2010] VSC 534">discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2010] VSC 534">notice of meeting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2010] VSC 534">electronic notification valid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2010] VSC 534">shareholders in united states of america</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2010] VSC 534">registration requirements of the united states securities legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2010] VSC 534">corporations act 2001 (cth) ss 411 (4), 411 (11), 411 (12), 411 (17); s 249j (3)(a)(c); securities act of 1933 (us) s 3(a)(10).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2010] VSC 440">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2010] VSC 440">schemes of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2010] VSC 440">approval of scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2010] VSC 440">discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2010] VSC 440">corporations act 2001 (cth) ss 411 (11), 411 (12) and 411 (17).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 78">category: no</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2010] VSC 4">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2010] VSC 4">scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2010] VSC 4">approval of scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2010] VSC 4">discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2010] VSC 4">section 411 corporations act (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">citing from="[2010] VSC 4">securities act of 1933 (us).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] VSC 554" id="cs0">[3] Ibid [15]. [4] Re Lion Selection [2009] VSC 546 (Unreported , Judd J, 3 December 2009) [23] --- [24]; Re Cytopia (No. 2) [2010] VSC 4 (Unreported , Croft J, 15 January 2010) [19] --- [20]; Re GRD Limited [2009] FCA 1595 (Unreported , Gilmour J, 24 December 2009) [36] --- [38]. AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
 URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2010/554.html

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] VSC 534" id="cs1">2) (2010) 78 ACSR 609 [39] --- [40]; Re Lion Selection [2009] VSC 546 (Unreported , Judd J, 3 December 2009) [20] --- [22]. [4] Re Lion Selection [2009] VSC 546 (Unreported , Judd J, 3 December 2009) [23] --- [24]; Re Cytopia (No. 2) [2010] VSC 4 (Unreported , Croft J, 15 January 2010) [19] --- [20]; Re GRD Limited [2009] FCA 1595 (Unreported , Gilmour J, 24 December 2009) [36] --- [38]. [5] Cf Re Solution 6 Holdings Ltd (2004) 50 ASCR 113 , 118-20. AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
 URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2010/534.html

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] VSC 440" id="cs2">2) (2010) 78 ACSR 609 [39] --- [40]; Re Lion Selection [2009] VSC 546 (Unreported , Judd J, 3 December 2009) [20] --- [22]. [3] Re Lion Selection [2009] VSC 546 (Unreported , Judd J, 3 December 2009) [23] --- [24]; Re Cytopia (No. 2) [2010] VSC 4 (Unreported , Croft J, 15 January 2010) [19] --- [20]; Re GRD Limited [2009] FCA 1595 (Unreported , Gilmour J, 24 December 2009) [36] --- [38]. AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
 URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2010/440.html

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 78" id="cs3">This application, in that respect, is similar to the position in the case of GRD Limited (2009) FCA 1595 and what I had to say there at paras [28]-[31] is apt to this case so far as it concerns the independent expert's conclusion that the Scheme is not fair but reasonable. I am satisfied that the Scheme is in the best interests of the scheme participants. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] VSC 4" id="cs4">17 The experts' report included in the Scheme documents before the Court in Re Coles Group Ltd also stated the view that the transaction was not fair but reasonable. [16] A more recent example is provided by Re GRD Limited. [17] It can be seen from the discussion of the expert's report that Gilmour J [18] approached the matter in a similar way to Davies J [19] in this case.  2) (2009) 73 ACSR 411. Re Stockbridge Ltd (1993) 9 ACSR 637. Re GRD Limited [2009] FCA 1595. Re Permanent Trustee Co [2002] NSWSC 1177 ; (2002) 43 ACSR 601. Zenyth Therapeutics Ltd v Smith (2006) 60 ACSR 548.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 411 Administration of compromises etc.</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 412 Information as to compromise with creditors</title>
<title id="l3">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 456">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 456">ascertainment of assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 456">distinction between income and capital</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 456">compensation received</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 456">termination of agreement for manufacture and sale of motor vehicle engine components over period of years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 456">whether compensation for termination a compensation for abandonment of part of the taxpayer's profit-making structure.  income tax assessment act 1936</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 456">s.25</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 6">criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 6">driving offence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 6">prescribed concentration of alcohol</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 6">sample of breath</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 6">analysis of sample furnished within three hours after driving vehicle indicating presence in blood of more than prescribed concentration of alcohol</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 6">whether offence committed only when vehicle involved in accident</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 6">road safety act 1986 (vict.), s.49(1)(f).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1987] HCA 38">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1987] HCA 38">powers of the commonwealth parliament taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1987] HCA 38">fringe benefits tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1987] HCA 38">whether law with respect to taxation or law to discourage provision of benefits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1987] HCA 38">whether real connexion required between subject and object of tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1987] HCA 38">laws imposing taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1987] HCA 38">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1987] HCA 38">more than one subject of taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1987] HCA 38">legislation discriminating against states</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1987] HCA 38">imposition of special burdens or disabilities not imposed on others</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1987] HCA 38">imposition of tax on benefits provided to commonwealth employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[1987] HCA 38">the constitution (63  64 vict. c.12), s. 51(ii) , (xxxvi), (xxxix)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[1987] HCA 38">fringe benefits tax act 1986 (cth) fringe benefits tax assessment act 1986 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[1987] HCA 38">fringe benefits tax (application to the commonwealth) act 1986 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[1987] HCA 38">fringe benefits tax (miscellaneous provisions) act 1986 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 74">crown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 74">regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 74">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 74">whether within power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 74">whether examinable by court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 74">purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 74">planning act 1979 (n.t.), s. 4(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 74">planning regulations (n.t.), reg. 5, sch. 3.  northern territory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 74">administrator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 74">whether representative of crown in territory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1981] HCA 74">northern territory (self-government) act 1978 (cth), ss. 31 , 32 , 51 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1971] HCA 28">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1971] HCA 28">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1971] HCA 28">statutory commodity marketing board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1971] HCA 28">power to make regulations necessary or convenient for carrying out or giving effect to act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1971] HCA 28">regulations empowering high court to hear disputed election petitions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1971] HCA 28">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1971] HCA 28">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), ss. 51 (i.) (xxxix.), 76</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1971] HCA 28">apple and pear organization act, 1938-1966 (cth), s. 27</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1971] HCA 28">apple and pear organization (election of board) regulations 1948, regs. 38, 40.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1957] HCA 4">marketing of primary products</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1957] HCA 4">egg and egg pulp marketing board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1957] HCA 4">regulation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1957] HCA 4">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1957] HCA 4">prohibition against any person placing eggs in cold storage without consent of board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1957] HCA 4">not restricted to eggs vested in the board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1957] HCA 4">statutory power to make regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1957] HCA 4">for purposes necessary or expedient for the administration of the act or for carrying out the objects of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1957] HCA 4">regulating the storage of the commodity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1957] HCA 4">marketing of primary products acts 1935-1953 (no. 4337</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1957] HCA 4">no. 5710) (vict.), ss. 18 (1) (c), 43 (1) (b) (iv)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1957] HCA 4">egg and egg pulp marketing board regulations 1953, reg. 44.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1951] HCA 42">regulation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1951] HCA 42">excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1951] HCA 42">duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1951] HCA 42">liability for payment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1951] HCA 42">fixed by statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1951] HCA 42">extension of liability by regulation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1951] HCA 42">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1951] HCA 42">excise act 1901-1949 (no. 9 of 1901</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1951] HCA 42">no. 46 of 1949), s. 164</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1951] HCA 42">excise regulations 1925-1948 (s.r. no. 181 of 1925</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1951] HCA 42">no. 95 of 1948), reg. 188.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 5 Applications for review of decisions</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 6 Applications for review of conduct related to making of decisions</title>
<title id="l3">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l4">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 15AA Regard to be had to purpose or object of Act</title>
<title id="l5">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 </title>
<title id="l6">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 4 General medical services table</title>
<title id="l7">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 4A Pathology services table</title>
<title id="l8">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 4AA Diagnostic imaging services table</title>
<title id="l9">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 4BAA Conditional specification of services in table items</title>
<title id="l10">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l11">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l12">LEGISLATIVE INSTRUMENTS ACT 2003 </title>
<title id="l13">LEGISLATIVE INSTRUMENTS ACT 2003 - SECT 4 Definitions</title>
<title id="l14">LEGISLATIVE INSTRUMENTS ACT 2003 - SECT 5 Definition--a legislative instrument</title>
<title id="l15">LEGISLATIVE INSTRUMENTS ACT 2003 - SECT 13 Construction of legislative instruments</title>
<title id="l16">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l17">HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l18">HEALTH LEGISLATION AMENDMENT ACT 2005 NO. 155, 2005 </title>
<title id="l19">LIMITATION ACT </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l1">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 47B Vacant Crown land covered by claimant applications</title>
<title id="l2">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 57 Determination of prescribed body corporate etc.</title>
<title id="l3">TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1991 </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
<title id="l5">FORESTRY ACT 1959 </title>
<title id="l6">GOVERNMENT OWNED CORPORATIONS ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l7">LAND ACT 1994 </title>
<title id="l8">NATURE CONSERVATION ACT 1992 </title>
<title id="l9">PETROLEUM ACT 1923 </title>
<title id="l10">PETROLEUM AND GAS (PRODUCTION AND SAFETY) ACT 2004 </title>
<title id="l11">WATER ACT 2000 </title>
<title id="l12">WET TROPICS WORLD HERITAGE PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT ACT 1993 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1215">high court and federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1215">federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1215">delegation of powers to registrar</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1215">prerogative writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1215">certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 1215">prohibition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 1215">power of registrar to make a winding up order  corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 1215">power of registrar to make a winding up order</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1215" id="cs0">The first submission that was made is that the Registrar did not have jurisdiction to determine the application under s 440A(2). The applicant relied upon Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Scottsdale Homes No 3 Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1958 at [3] , where Logan J said:

 Upon the winding-up application coming on before a registrar of the Court that day, an application was made for the winding up application to be adjourned, pursuant to s 440A(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). That particular application being beyond the jurisdictional remit of a registrar, the application was referred to a judge. It came before me for hearing today.

 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 435C When administration begins and ends</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 439A Administrator to convene meeting and inform creditors</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 440A Winding up company</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1336">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1336">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1336">chinese applicant claiming persecution for falun gong practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1336">disbelieved by tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1336">no arguable case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1336">application dismissed at show-cause hearing.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1977">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1977">inquiry into conduct of trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1977">grounds for removal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1977">breakdown of relationship between trustee and bankrupt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1977">admission of estimate of costs for voting purposes at creditors meeting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1977">whether a conflict of interest exists when interests of creditors and interests of trustee are similar</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1977">use of notice of objection to discharge of bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 180">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 180">costs of trustee for inquiry into conduct of the trustee under s 129 of the bankruptcy act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 180">no error in awarding costs to include remuneration, charges and expenses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 180">additional submissions not considered by primary judge due to filing error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 180">allegation of procedural fairness not established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 180">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 894">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 894">inquiry under s 179 of the bankruptcy act as to the conduct of the trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 140">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 140">entitlements of trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 140">certificates of taxation relating to remuneration, costs, charges and expenses claimed by former trustee set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 140">where work undertaken after bankruptcy annulled</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 140">where remuneration and costs claimed in relation to litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 140">where primary judge found litigation undertaken for the former trustee's own benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 140">whether litigation undertaken for former trustee's own benefit was not for the purpose of the administration of the estate</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1127" id="cs0">1 On 13 December 2007 I dismissed an application by Mr Boensch seeking the removal of Mr Pascoe as his trustee ( Boensch v Pascoe [2007] FCA 1977). In a later judgment, on 27 March 2008, I made orders as to costs of those proceedings ( Boensch v Pascoe [2008] FCA 412). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l1">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 178 Appeal to Court against trustee's decision etc.</title>
<title id="l2">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 179 Control of trustees by the Court</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 43 Costs</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">appeal from judgment of the federal magistrates court -change of circumstance (residence) (class ag) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">definition of "special need relative"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">whether jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">no error shown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">no question of principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">re the minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte durairajasingham  immigration law and administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">refugee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">refugee review tribunal decision refusing to grant protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">application in original jurisdiction of high court for prerogative relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations and evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether tribunal failed to consider all available inferences from evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether s 430(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth) required the tribunal to refer to evidence contrary to its findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether a breach of s 430(1) amounts to a jurisdictional error grounding prerogative relief.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">role of the high court under the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">extent of high court's jurisdiction to grant certiorari pursuant to s 75(v) of the constitution .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">decision to refuse application for resident status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">whether decision unreasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">when and on what grounds factual errors may be reviewed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">what material decision-maker must consider in application for entry permit.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">de facto marraige alleged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">whether "some basis" to reject permanence of relationship.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 106">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 106">leave to raise new ground refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 106">failure to identify appellable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 106">need to state ground of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 106">failure to do so</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 106">mere assertion of "jurisdictional error"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 106">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1546">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1546">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1546">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1546">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1546">application for review of decision of the rrt affirming a decision of a delegate of the minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1546">applicant a citizen of china claiming fear of persecution for religious belief and involvement in religious activities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1546">shouters underground church</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1546">claim to have distributed religious materials</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1546">credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1546">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1546">where applicant claimed that he was provided with a mandarin interpreter at the tribunal hearing but his first language was fujian</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1546">whether tribunal made erroneous findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1546">whether tribunal failed to comply with migration act 1958 (cth) s.424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1546">illogicality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1546">no jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 106" id="cs0">Even in the context of migration cases where appellants are frequently unrepresented, it remains the obligation of an appellant to demonstrate legal, factual or discretionary error on the part of the Federal Magistrate: Abeyesinghe v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2004] FCA 1558 at [4] per Kenny J; Applicant M47/2004 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 176 at [27] per Young J; SZEPU v Refugee Review Tribunal [2006] FCA 633 at [2] per Young J; SZITU v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 758 at [33] per Greenwood J. The jurisdiction relevantly entrusted to this Court is an appellate jurisdiction and no order may be made in the absence of appellable error. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] NSWADT 187" id="cs1">29 The evidence here is overwhelming. The Respondent appeared as the solicitor on the record, and in person, in proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia and in the Federal Magistrates Court in relation to a number of appeals in the following matters:

SZBKB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2005] FCA 1811 (13/12/2005)

SZBKC v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2005] FCA 1416 (6/10/2005)

SZDZH v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2005] FCA 1533 (12/10/2005)

SZEOO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2005] FCA 1797 (12/12/2005)

SZEUX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 680 (9/5/2006)

SZEPU v Refugee Review Tribunal [2006] FCA 633 (10/5/2006)

SZCOX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1053 (4/8/2006)

SZDFF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1178 (1/9/2006)

SZGLL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1507 (3/11/2006)

SZJBN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2007] FMCA 434 (13/3/2007)

SZJJJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2007] FMCA 467 (20/3/2007)</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1546" id="cs2">SZHDZ v Minister for Immigration  Anor [2007] FMCA 1546 (3 September 2007)

 [ Home ] [ Databases ] [ WorldLII ] [ Search ] [ Feedback ] Federal Magistrates Court of Australia You are here: AustLII  Databases  Federal Magistrates Court of Australia  2007  [2007] FMCA 1546

 [ Database Search ] [ Name Search ] [ Recent Decisions ] [ Noteup ] [ Download ] [ LawCite ] [ Help ] SZHDZ v Minister for Immigration  Anor [2007] FMCA 1546 (3 September 2007)
Last Updated: 17 September 2007

 FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
 SZHDZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION  ANOR [2007] FMCA 1546

 MIGRATION --- Visa --- protection visa --- Refugee Review Tribunal --- application for review of decision of the RRT affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa --- applicant a citizen of China claiming fear of persecution for religious belief and involvement in religious activities --- Shouters underground Church --- claim to have distributed religious materials --- credibility --- procedural fairness --- where applicant claimed that he was provided with a Mandarin interpreter at the Tribunal hearing but his first language was Fujian --- whether Tribunal made erroneous findings --- whether Tribunal failed to comply with Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s.424A --- illogicality --- no jurisdictional error. Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s.39B
 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss.422B , 424A , 425 , 474

 SZEPU v Refugee Review Tribunal [2006] FCA 633 referred to. SZEEU v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCAFC 2 referred to. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Epeabaka (1999) FCR 411 referred to. 21. Mr Ower submitted that the Tribunal must proceed on a rational basis and rely upon evidence that is logically probative, referring to the decision of Young J in SZEPU v Refugee Review Tribunal [8] where his Honour said that findings on credibility are not invulnerable to review, but:

 They will not ordinarily be reviewable if the Tribunal has provided a rational basis for rejecting the claims and relied upon matters that were logically probative of the issue it was determining. [9]  21. Mr Ower submitted that the Tribunal must proceed on a rational basis and rely upon evidence that is logically probative, referring to the decision of Young J in SZEPU v Refugee Review Tribunal [8] where his Honour said that findings on credibility are not invulnerable to review, but:

 They will not ordinarily be reviewable if the Tribunal has provided a rational basis for rejecting the claims and relied upon matters that were logically probative of the issue it was determining. [9] </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 25 Exercise of appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 91R Persecution</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>