Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1410">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1410">asset preservation order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1410">sufficient evidence required to establish prima facie cause of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1410">solicitor's certification of claim's reasonable prospects of success not evidence of prima facie case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">voluntary administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">deed of company arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">termination of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">construction of section 445d(1) corporations act 2001</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">circumstances of application of section 445d(1)(a) and (b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">interrelationship of section 445d(1)(a) and (b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">meaning of "false or misleading"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">meaning of "material"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">role of informal seeking of views of creditors in deciding materiality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">whether failure to call meeting of creditors in circumstances when deed required it to be called is a material contravention of the deed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">whether winding up proceedings being on foot prevents deed administrator from calling meeting of creditors to consider placing company into liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">whether a deed can provide for the de facto winding up of the company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">in what circumstances payment of different amounts to creditors bound by a deed is permissible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">role of good faith between creditors in operation of deed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">section 445d(1)(e) does not apply to action contrary to the deed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">relevance of a deed allowing an insolvent company to continue to trade</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">relevance of substantial departure in practice from proposal put to creditors at time deed was adopted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">operation of discretion to set aside deed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">relevance of interests of creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.20">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">relevance of public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.21">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">public interest factors which can be taken into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.22">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">significance of provision of false or misleading information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.23">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">whether termination to be affected on application by person said to be a disputed creditor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.24">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">procedure to achieve winding up by the court when deed terminated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.25">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.26">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">arrangements with creditors without sequestration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.27">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">composition under the general law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.28">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">whether, and in what circumstances, special benefits can be provided to one creditor bound by a composition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.29">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">juristic basis of prohibition on one creditor bound by a composition receiving a special benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.30">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">role of consideration in compositions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.31">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.32">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">general contractual principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.33">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.34">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">role of consideration in composition between debtor and creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.35">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">juristic basis on which court prevents one creditor bound by a composition from receiving a special benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.36">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.37">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">contempt, attachment and sequestration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.38">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">action out of court frustrating litigation in court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.39">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1235">when a contempt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 99">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 99">voluntary administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 99">invalid resolution to appoint administrator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 99">curative order under s 447a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 99">not procedural irregularity under s 1322(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 99">curative order under s 1322(4)(a)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 99">relevant criteria for application under s 600a to set aside resolution to enter into deed of company arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 99">relevant criteria for application to terminate or set aside deed of company arrangement under s 445d(1)(a), (f) and (g) and s 445g</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 186">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 186">voluntary administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 186">deed of company arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 186">deed provides for creation of creditors' trust and execution of related implementation deed and charge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 186">all such steps taken immediately after deed became binding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 186">creditor applies for order under s 445d terminating deed of company arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 186">but deed already terminated by s 445c(c) upon completion of specified steps</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 186">no capacity to terminate again</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 186">reliance by plaintiff on s 447a in submissions in reply</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 186">claim for order terminating deed ab initio</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 186">whether new case can be mounted in submissions in reply</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 186">whether, in any event, s 447a order could have effect of terminating deed of company arrangement ab initio</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 186">where independently created rights and obligations have arisen from creditors' trust and related implementation deed and charge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 186">comment on use of part 5.3a to create scheme of administration outside part 5.3a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 468">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 468">orders to be made on termination of a deed of company arrangement and consequent liquidation costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 468">submitting defendants liable for a proportion of costs of proceeding where partly responsible for need for proceeding</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] NSWSC 186" id="cs0">

 c. Further it did so without adequately reflecting the position of the secured creditor --- namely that all proceeds would first go in satisfaction of that charge before ever reaching the CT.

 d. The RTC did not clearly tell creditors that:

i. an important disadvantage of the scheme was that they lost the 'substantial justice' provision in s 553C;

ii. the Director had no obligation to fund --- so the result would be zero (for same reasons as in liquidation) unless director chose to, and was able to fund; notwithstanding that director secured a release of all rights against him, such as insolvent trading. This was one of the basis [sic] upon which another of Mr Tayeh's recommended DOCAs was terminated in Vatera Pty Ltd v Meribal Interiors NSW Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 404 at [12] , [13]. iii. All or any of them could fund pursuit of the Claims via a liquidator (indeed there is no evidence that the Administrator spoke to any creditor about this before making his RTC); and

iv.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 468" id="cs1">1 On 1 April 2008 I delivered reasons for judgment in this matter ( Vatera Pty Limited v Meribal Interiors NSW Pty Limited (Under Deed of Company Arrangement); in the Matter of Meribal Interiors NSW Pty Limited (Under Deed of Company Arrangement) [2008] FCA 404) and stood the matter over in order to consider the orders to be made. This judgment should be read with those reasons. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 436A Company may appoint administrator if board thinks it is or will become insolvent</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 439A Administrator to convene meeting and inform creditors</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 445D When Court may terminate deed</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 556 Priority payments</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l6">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SECURITY OF PAYMENT ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l7">LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 2004 </title>
<title id="l8">LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 2004 - SECT 345 Law practice not to act unless there are reasonable prospects of success</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 178">practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 178">order 52 r 14aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 178">application for leave to be heard as amici curiae</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 178">consideration of distinction between an amicus curiae and an intervenor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 178">difference between non-lawyer entities seeking to become involved in litigation and legal practitioners invited by the court to assist it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 178">matters taken into account in determining the terms and conditions of leave to intervene</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 178">held: leave granted pursuant to o 52 r 14aa to intervene in appeals on certain conditions and with certain rights and liabilities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1483">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1483">stay of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1483">abuse of the court's process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1483">maintenance and champerty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1483">whether litigation funder has control of the proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1483">relationship between the applicant, its solicitors and the litigation funder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1483">distinction between whether an allegedly champertous agreement is enforceable and whether the proceeding is an abuse of the court's process practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1483">representative proceeding under part iva of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1483">whether the proceeding ought to continue as a representative proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 1483">power to order that the proceeding no longer continue as a representative proceeding under s 33n of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 1483">whether representative proceeding will not provide an efficient and effective means of dealing with the claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 1483">whether it is inappropriate that the claims be pursued by means of a representative proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2005] FCA 1483">whether in the interests of justice to make such an order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2005] FCA 1483">role of the opt out procedure under part iva</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2005] FCA 1483">comparison between opt out and opt in procedures practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2005] FCA 1483">intervention by a non-party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2005] FCA 1483">application by litigation funder to intervene pursuant to o 6 r 17 of the federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2005] FCA 1483">leave to intervene on a limited basis granted evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2005] FCA 1483">admissibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[2005] FCA 1483">opinion evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.20">cited from="[2005] FCA 1483">whether opinion evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.21">cited from="[2005] FCA 1483">whether expert evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.22">cited from="[2005] FCA 1483">expert evidence based on experience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.23">cited from="[2005] FCA 1483">evidence ruled admissible pursuant to s 79 of the evidence act 1995 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 23">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 23">authorisation of copyright infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 23">copyright infringement notices served on internet service provider (isp) alleging that users of isp's network were infringing copyright in cinematographic films by making them available online and electronically transmitting them to the public</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 23">whether isp authorised copyright infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 23">whether isp had power to prevent infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 23">whether isp took reasonable steps to prevent or avoid infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 23">consideration of other factors relevant to authorisation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 23">knowledge of infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 23">encouragement of infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 23">inactivity and indifference to infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 23">whether isp sanctioned, approved or countenanced infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 23">whether s 112e of the copyright act 1968 (cth) prevented isp from being found to have authorised infringement  intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 23">acts of primary infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 23">whether users of isp's network infringed copyright in cinematographic films by making them available online or electronically transmitting them to the public</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 23">whether the whole or a substantial part of any such cinematographic film was electronically transmitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 23">whether individual users committed multiple acts of infringement in relation to any such cinematographic film by making it available online and electronically transmitting it.  intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 23">whether telecommunications act 1997 (cth) compelled a finding that isp could not reasonably be expected to issue warning notices to customers or suspend or terminate their accounts on the basis of the copyright infringement notices because the disclosure or use of information contained in them or business records of the isp to which it would need to have regard for that purpose was prohibited by law.  intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 23">'safe harbour' provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.18">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 23">whether isp complied with relevant provisions of division 2aa of part v of the copyright act 1968 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1391">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1391">interveners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1391">application sought for leave to intervene</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1391">whether problematic for intervener to side with one party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1391">whether contribution of the internet industry association would be 'useful and different' to that already provided by parties to the proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1391">comparison between submissions of internet industry association and closing submissions of the respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1391">whether sufficient to constitute 'useful and different' for intervener to approach proceeding from a 'broader perspective' than provided by a party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1391">o 6 r 17 federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 175">industrial relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 175">application under s 855(1) of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth) for leave to intervene in an appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 175">relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 175">liability of intervener for extra costs incurred by the parties to the appeal practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 175">consideration of application for leave to intervene under o52 r14aa of the federal court rules</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCAFC 23" id="cs0">Rule 14AA is intended to regulate comprehensively the Court's practice with respect to the intervention of non parties (see Sharman Networks Ltd v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 178 ; (2006) 155 FCR 291 at [11] ). Where the parties to an appeal are represented by substantial and competent teams of lawyers and an applicant for leave to intervene proposes to raise matters already ventilated by the parties to the appeal, the application for leave to intervene would normally be refused (see ASIC v Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Limited (No.3) [2007] FCA 393 at [12] - [13] and Levy v State of Victoria [1997] HCA 31 ; (1997) 189 CLR 579 at 604). Application by APRA
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1391" id="cs1">In Australian Securities  Investments Commission v Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Ltd (No. 3) [2007] FCA 393 , Jacobson J found that he was not satisfied that the contribution of a group which he described as a ' lobby group ', namely the Australian Financial Markets Association ('AFMA'), would contribute to the proceedings in a way which was ' useful or different from the contributions of the parties ' (see [12]). His Honour observed that the parties were well represented by substantial teams of legal counsel. He also observed at [13] that the applicant in those proceedings, ASIC, would not ' be influenced by tactical or forensic considerations which would be necessary to be off-set by submissions made by AFMA '. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCAFC 175" id="cs2">36 In the trial in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Limited (ACN 003 114 832) (No 3) [2007] FCA 393 Jacobson J declined to make orders giving leave to the Australian Financial Markets Association to intervene in the trial. He observed that the Association was an industry association for participants in the financial markets industry which could be described as a 'lobby group for the industry'. He observed that its role was to 'represent the interests of its members and advocate what it described in its evidence as a "sensible and proportionate regulation of the wholesale banking and financial markets'''. The plaintiff, Australian Securities and Investments Commission, opposed the intervention, arguing that it was inappropriate for what was in essence a lobby group for the industry to intervene. It argued that whilst the Association had a substantial interest in the outcome, that was not a proper basis for permitting them to intervene. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 912A General obligations</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1617">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1617">application for possession of land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1617">bankruptcy notice under s.139zq of the bankruptcy act 1966 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1617">valuation of property interest transferred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1617">cross claim seeking to have notice set aside.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 759">real property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 759">torrens titles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 759">caveats</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 759">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 759">caveatable interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 759">where bankrupt transferred joint tenancy interest in land to spouse for $1 consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 759">where trustee of bankrupt estate issued a notice pursuant to bankruptcy act 1966 , s 139zq , to bankrupt's spouse</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 759">where notice set aside but appeal pending to federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 759">where caveat claims "equitable interest"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 759">where application to court made for the purpose of extending operation of caveat in aid of appeal in federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 759">whether caveator's claim in the caveat "has or may have substance"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 759">test for determining whether claim "has or may have substance"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 759">whether nature of interest was sufficiently described in the caveat</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 759">whether caveator sufficiently complied with (nsw) real property regulation 2003 , cl 7</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 759">whether bankruptcy act , ss 120 and 121 create a caveatable interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 759">whether charge created by bankruptcy act , s 139zr(1) is a caveatable interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 759">where s 139zr(1) charge did not exist at time caveat lodged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 759">where caveat discloses no connection with s 139zr(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 759">discretionary considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 759">where trustee has not administered bankrupt estate or brought proceedings expeditiously</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 759">whether more appropriate remedy to aid appeal in federal court is to seek an interlocutory injunction from that court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.21">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 759">where sufficient security retained for trustee's claim.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] NSWSC 759" id="cs0">6 On 10 December 2007, the Trustee, having obtained an extension of time in which to do so, filed in the Federal Court a notice of appeal from the judgment of Lloyd-Jones FM, which included by way of interlocutory relief a claim for a stay of the Federal Magistrate's orders. When the application for an extension of time in which to appeal had come before Buchanan J of the Federal Court on 6 December 2007, his Honour declined to deal with the application for a stay, saying: "I declined to entertain the application for a stay on the basis presented. The applicant may renew any such application if it wishes, in a more formal way, with appropriate evidentiary support if that is necessary" [ Sutherland v Vale [2007] FCA 1876 , [18]]. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l1">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 36 Reckoning of time</title>
<title id="l2">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l3">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 5 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l4">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 139ZQ Official Receiver may require payment [see Table B]</title>
<title id="l5">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 139ZT Failure to comply with notice</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 25 Exercise of appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l9">VALUERS REGISTRATION ACT 1975 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 268">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 268">whether the relevant notices were "given" pursuant to s222aof of the income tax assessment act 1936 (cth) notwithstanding that the commissioner had not searched return or notice from whence the address was extracted but only searched asic's public database mascot</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 268">meaning of "asic document" in s222aof(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 268">observations on service pursuant to s28a and 29 of the acts interpretation act 1901 (cth) as alternative mode of service.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 88">taxes and duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 88">income tax and related legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 88">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 88">prompt recovery, through estimates and payment agreements, of certain amounts not remitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 88">where commissioner empowered to make estimate of amount</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 88">where making of estimate created liability upon company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 88">where obligation imposed upon directors to cause company to pay estimate or enter administration or be wound up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 88">where obligation enforced by penalty imposed upon directors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 88">where commissioner not entitled to recover penalty unless statutory notice given</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 88">whether decision to give notice reviewable under the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1998] NSWSC 64">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1998] NSWSC 64">failure of company to remit group tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1998] NSWSC 64">liability of directors under s 221c(1a) of the income tax assessment act 1936</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1998] NSWSC 64">effect of errors on validity of notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1998] NSWSC 64">whether notice misleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1998] NSWSC 64">severance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1998] NSWSC 64">effectiveness of service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">hire purchase</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">repossession</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">statutory notice by owner of hirer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">sufficiency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">posting to hirer at last known place of abode or business permissible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">post office given by hirer as postal address</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">whether place of abode</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">hire-purchase act of 1959 (q.), ss. 13(3), (4), 42(1)(c), (2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">acts interpretation acts 1954 to 1962 (q.),s. 39(1).  practice (q.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">supreme court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">leave to defend</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">affidavit failing to establish triable issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">question left to be investigated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">failure of affidavits in reply to deal with question</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">rules of the supreme court (q.), o. 18,r. 1.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">privy council</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">appeal from state supreme court invested with federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">matter arising under law made by common</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">raised by defence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">whether court exercising concurrent state and federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), s. 76 (ii.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">judiciary act 1901-1968 (cth), ss. 39, 40.  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">ouster of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">public policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">proceedings for divorce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">agreement between husband and wife concerning maintenance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">whether invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">whether invalidity derived from common law or statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">matrimonial causes act 1959-1966 (cth).  matrimonial causes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">agreement between husband and wife concerning maintenance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">whether enforceable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">whether attempt to oust jurisdiction of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">cited from="[1971] HCA 39">matrimonial causes act 1959-1966 (cth), ss. 5, 8, 23 (2) (3), 87 (1) (k).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l2">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 28A Service of documents</title>
<title id="l3">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 29 Meaning of service by post</title>
<title id="l4">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 </title>
<title id="l5">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 335 References extend to pre-commencement matters and things</title>
<title id="l6">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l7">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l8">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 </title>
<title id="l9">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 16 Payments out of Consolidated Revenue Fund</title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l11">INTERPRETATION ACT </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1415">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1415">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1415">whether services and goods closely related</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1415">deceptive similarity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1415">reputation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1415">intention to use trade mark.  held: appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1415">decision of registrar of trade marks permitting registration set aside.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1415" id="cs0">Further, all goods and services within the specification in the application must be considered as the "question is not limited to whether a particular use will give rise to deception or confusion. It must be based upon what the applicant can do if registration is obtained" ( Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths Ltd (1999) 93 FCR 365 ; [1999] FCA 1020 at [50] ). Putting it another way "a normal and fair use for all goods covered by the marks under consideration" is required ( Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmetique v Senator Automation Pty Ltd (2007) AIPC 92-256 ; [2007] FCA 1391 at [6] ). (4) To establish deceptive similarity a mere possibility is insufficient. It is "necessary to show a real tangible danger of deception or confusion occurring".</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l1">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 10 Definition of deceptively similar</title>
<title id="l2">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 44 Identical etc. trade marks</title>
<title id="l3">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 52 Opposition</title>
<title id="l4">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 55 Decision</title>
<title id="l5">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 56 Appeal</title>
<title id="l6">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 57 Registration may be opposed on same grounds as for rejection</title>
<title id="l7">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 60 Trade mark similar to trade mark that has acquired a reputation in Australia</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the full court should regard itself as bound to apply a formula derived from niemann v. electronic industries ltd [1978] vicrp 44 ; (1978) vr 431</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">width of the discretion to grant leave to appeal under s. 24(1a) of the federal court of australia act 1976 .  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether any part of general overhead costs is allowable as a deduction in the determination of the profits made by an infringer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">principles relating to the taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the case of a side-line is an exceptional case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">reference to standard accountancy methods as indicating what must be deducted in order to determine the amount of a profit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of a line of cases establishing the approach adopted in the united states to the solution of this problem</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">onus on wrongdoer who has mixed legitimate activities with activities involving infringement of another's property right to justify the particular apportionment of costs adopted by him in his accounts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">declaration of principle that the infringer is generally at liberty to show that various categories of overhead contributed to the obtaining of the relevant profit and to show in what proportion they should be allocated in the taking of the account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of whether the profits for which the defendants must account are (in the case of a patented closure for a canister) the profits for the closures only or for the closures and canisters to which they are fitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the infringer's particular pricing policy can be relied on by him as a contribution by him to the profits unrelated to the patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the profits of the whole canister and closure are fairly traceable to the use by the infringer of the invention.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">appellate jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">appeal from supreme court of state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">final or interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">refusal of extension of time to proceed against nominal defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">whether civil right amounting to $3,000 involved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">special leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">grounds for grant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">judiciary act 1903-1960 (cth), s. 35 (1) (a).  insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">third party insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">unidentified vehicle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">action against nominal defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">extension of time to institute proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">considerations applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">review of exercise of discretion on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">right of further appeal to high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">refusal of application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">whether second application lies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">traffic act 1925 (tas.), s. 65a*</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.20">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">supreme court civil procedure act 1932 (tas.), s. 45 (b).  legal practitioners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.21">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">solicitor and client</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.22">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">reliance by client on advice of solicitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.23">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">whether client may subsequently resile from decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.24">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">action not brought within prescribed time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.25">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">application to extend time.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 1084">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 1084">application for leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 1084">whether in all the circumstances the decision is attended by sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration by full court</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 1084" id="cs0">That these principles are applicable in this case is clear from a number of recent judgments of this Court (see Besanko J in SZGCH v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 809 at par 14; Sundberg J in MZWZC v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 544 at par 8).
 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 24 Appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 25 Exercise of appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l3">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l4">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425A Notice of invitation to appear</title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 426A Failure of applicant to appear before Tribunal</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 </title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">commissioner of taxation v citylink melbourne limited  income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">allowable deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">respondent entered into contracts with the state of victoria to design, construct, operate and maintain a major system of roads</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">the state conceded to the respondent rights to do all that was necessary to complete those tasks, with a view to transferring the infrastructure and all associated rights back to the state at the expiry of the concession period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">respondent paid concession fees as consideration for those rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">whether concession fees were allowable deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">whether concession fees which accrued semi-annually were outgoings incurred in, and referable to, the relevant years of income, where the fees were "owing" but "not due for payment"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">whether payment was contingent or theoretical</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">whether concession fees were on revenue or capital account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">whether concession fees were an outgoing in gaining or producing the taxpayer's assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">whether the concession fees conferred a benefit on the taxpayer of an enduring nature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">whether acquisition of the benefit essential to the taxpayer's business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">whether concession fees were the purchase price paid for the road system as a capital asset</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">whether concession fees were akin to a share of profits with the state or a dividend payable to a joint venturer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">whether payment of concession fees analogous to the payment of rent.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1953] HCA 65">income tax (cth.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1953] HCA 65">assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1953] HCA 65">deduction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1953] HCA 65">losses and outgoings wholly and exclusively incurred in producing assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1953] HCA 65">annual leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1953] HCA 65">holiday pay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1953] HCA 65">industrial award fixing rate of pay on basis of each completed month of continuous service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1953] HCA 65">provision made by employer for holiday pay in respect of portion of year of income accruing due to employee during ensuing income year</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1953] HCA 65">year of income to which attributable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1953] HCA 65">income tax assessment act 1936-1947 (no. 27 of 1936</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[1953] HCA 65">no. 11 of 1947), s. 51 (1).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 </title>
<title id="l3">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 92 Income and deductions of partner</title>
<title id="l4">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL REGULATIONS 1976 </title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 142">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 142">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 142">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 142">fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 142">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 142">application to refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 142">invitation to attend oral hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 142">fraudulent advice from migration agent that tribunal would refuse application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 142">advice that applicant should not attend hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 142">applicant dissuaded by agent's fraud from attending</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 142">whether procedural unfairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 142">effect of statutory provisions relating to invitation to appear and codification of natural justice hearing rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 142">whether apparent consent to non-appearance vitiated by fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 142">whether tribunal decision induced or affected by fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 110">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 110">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 110">whether tribunal failed to notify appellant of hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 110">requirements of s 425 of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 110">relocation principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 110">whether tribunal erred in applying relocation principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 110">whether it was reasonable for the appellants to relocate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 110">whether the appellants would be required to modify behaviour to avoid persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 73">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 73">obligation to invite applicant to hearing under s 425 of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 73">whether obligation satisfied by compliance with s 425a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 73">letters addressed to residential address returned</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 73">letter sent to mailing address not returned</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 73">no response to invitation to hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 73">whether tribunal obliged to take further steps to invite applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 73">whether the federal magistrates court erred in finding that the refugee review tribunal had not satisfied the obligation in s 425 to invite the respondent to a hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">application for business skills migrant visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">failure to satisfy regulation 131.214</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">opportunity to respond to critical issue on which decision likely to turn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">right to comment upon adverse material from third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">whether critical issue obvious to applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">whether issue apparent from nature or terms of statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">whether applicant knew regulation 131.214 in issue migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">whether common law procedural fairness excluded by s 51a of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">exhaustive statement of natural justice hearing rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">proper construction of ss 51a , 357a and 422b  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">finding by delegate that criterion in regulation 131.214 was not satisfied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">whether evidence required in order to make finding that not satisfied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">effect of s 65 of migration act 1958 (cth). migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">ss 51a , 57 , 65 , 357a , 422b  migration regulations 1994 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">reg 131</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2006] FMCA 169">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2006] FMCA 169">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2006] FMCA 169">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2006] FMCA 169">summary dismissal of application as disclosing no arguable case.costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2006] FMCA 169">minister obliged, as a model litigant, to disclose actual costs incurred if they are less than the prescribed scale of costs.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 335">health law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 335">medical practitioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 335">professional services review scheme under part vaa of the health insurance act 1973 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 335">investigative referral made by delegate of health insurance commission to director of professional services review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 335">adjudicative referral made by director of professional services review to professional services review committee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 335">finding by professional services review committee that general practitioner engaged in inappropriate practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 335">directions made by determining authority including repayment of medicare benefits received in relation to services identified</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 335">whether investigative referral to the director of professional services review was invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 335">whether investigative referral sufficiently specified the conduct referred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 335">whether referral is invalid where conduct not sufficiently specified</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 335">whether appellant ought to have been given opportunity by the determining authority to present submission concerning 'exceptional circumstances' where that case was not presented by the appellant before the health insurance commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 335">where appellant not aware that determining authority might make directions which went beyond the recommendations of the health insurance commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 335">powers of the determining authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 335">whether there is denial of procedural fairness resulting in a breach of natural justice where decision-maker not responsible for the unfairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 162">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 162">claim for protection visa refused by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 162">primary judge dismissed application under s 39b of the judiciary act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 162">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 162">obligations to give notice of hearing.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 779">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 779">incompetent appeal from an interlocutory decision of a federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 779">treated as application for leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 779">claim that applicant had not received notice of hearing before tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 779">claim that migration agent had declined invitation to hearing before without consultation or instructions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 779">claim that applicant has supplementary material that he would have provided to tribunal had he known of the hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 779">no evidence to support claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 779">statutory obligations of the tribunal to notify the applicant of hearing  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 779">determining if decision is final or interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 779">considerations when granting leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 30">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 30">where application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 30">where did not attend tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 30">where draft order nisi</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 30">where review of proceedings in refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 30">whether denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 30">whether not given opportunity to be heard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 30">whether had notice of hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 30">whether tribunal relied upon additional material that the prosecutor was not able to comment upon</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 30">whether well-founded fear of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 30">whether material not before the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 30">whether had notice of case to be met</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[2004] FCA 30">whether error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[2004] FCA 30">whether immigration adviser's negligence or incompetence constitutes a ground of review.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">application for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">internal protection principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">well-founded fear of persecution not extending to whole country</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">relocation in country of nationality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">reasonableness of relocation alternative</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">nature of inquiry decision-maker required to undertake.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 744" id="cs0">11 Rule 44.12(2) of the FMC Rules expressly provides that, to avoid doubt, a dismissal of an application for relief by the Federal Magistrates Court under r 44.12(1)(a) is interlocutory. The FMC Rules bind Federal Magistrates but cannot bind this Court. See SZHUS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2007] FCA 64 at [2] although compare the reliance placed upon the provisions of the FMC Rules in SZHVP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1360 at [3] and NBLH v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 209 at [1] .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1201" id="cs1">3 I note that subrule (2) of r 44.12 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules provides that, "To avoid doubt, a dismissal under paragraph (1) (a) is interlocutory. " With respect to those responsible for making that subrule, it is not immediately apparent to me how the Rules of the Federal Magistrates Court can determine, in a way which is binding on this court for the purpose of s 24(1A) of its own Act , whether a judgment is interlocutory. The way in which this question has been dealt with in previous judgments of the court has varied. On some occasions subrule (2) has been adverted to as though it concludes the question whether a judgment by way of dismissal under par (a) of subrule (1), is or is not interlocutory: see SZHVP v MIMA [2006] FCA 1360 at [3] and NBLH v MIC [2007] FCA 209 at [1] . On other occasions, however, the characterisation of such a judgment has been determined as a matter of general principle: see SZHZB v MIMA [2006] FCA 547 and SZHUS v MIMA [2007] FCA 64. For my own part, I prefer to take the latter approach. I consider that an order of the kind referred to in r 44.12(1)(a) is interlocutory and I rely, for that conclusion, upon Re Luck [2003] HCA 70 ; [2003] HCA 70 ; (2003) 203 ALR 1 and Rana v University of South Australia [2004] FCA 559 ; (2004) 136 FCR 344. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 24 Appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 422B Exhaustive statement of natural justice hearing rule</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 426A Failure of applicant to appear before Tribunal</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 441A Methods by which Tribunal gives documents to a person other than the Secretary</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 441C When a person other than the Secretary is taken to have received a document from the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 441G Authorised recipient</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 215">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 215">interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 215">leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 215">criteria for leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 215">refusal of motion for summary dismissal of claim and strike out of statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 215">arguable questions in relation to application of s 82(2) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 215">availability of relief under s 87</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 215">whether abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 215">viability of a plea of deceit associated with collusive tendering</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 215">judgment at first instance not attended with doubt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 215">motion for leave dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 183">aborigines</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 183">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 183">application for native title determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 183">authorisation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 183">whether application properly authorised at lodgement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 183">application discontinued by leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 183">application for leave to appeal against grant of leave to discontinue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 183">native title claim group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 183">definition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 183">difficulties and disputes about definition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 183">connection to authorisation question</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 183">no substantial injustice arising out of discontinuance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 183">benefits to be derived from filing of fresh native title determination application with properly defined native title claim group and adequate authorisation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 183">application for leave to appeal against grant of leave to discontinue dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 154">extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 154">whether " dietrich" principle applies to extradition proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 154">application to lead evidence by person whose extradition is sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 154">meaning of requirement that documents "accompany" a request</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 154">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 154">requirement of reasonable grounds for believing an offence committed and premeditation. constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 154">constitutional validity of denial of application to lead evidence by person whose extradition is sought. practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 154">application for leave to appeal decision granting expedited hearing of an extradition review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 154">application for delivering up of material claimed to be in possession of respondent.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 97">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 97">claim for protection visa refused by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 97">application for an order nisi for writs of certiorari and prohibition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 97">remitted from high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 97">writ of certiorari out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 97">primary judge refused an order nisi</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 97">whether primary judge erred in rejecting claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 97">whether tribunal denied procedural fairness and misconceived its task</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 97">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 97">leave to appeal from interlocutory judgment.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the full court should regard itself as bound to apply a formula derived from niemann v. electronic industries ltd [1978] vicrp 44 ; (1978) vr 431</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">width of the discretion to grant leave to appeal under s. 24(1a) of the federal court of australia act 1976 .  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether any part of general overhead costs is allowable as a deduction in the determination of the profits made by an infringer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">principles relating to the taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the case of a side-line is an exceptional case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">reference to standard accountancy methods as indicating what must be deducted in order to determine the amount of a profit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of a line of cases establishing the approach adopted in the united states to the solution of this problem</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">onus on wrongdoer who has mixed legitimate activities with activities involving infringement of another's property right to justify the particular apportionment of costs adopted by him in his accounts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">declaration of principle that the infringer is generally at liberty to show that various categories of overhead contributed to the obtaining of the relevant profit and to show in what proportion they should be allocated in the taking of the account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of whether the profits for which the defendants must account are (in the case of a patented closure for a canister) the profits for the closures only or for the closures and canisters to which they are fitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the infringer's particular pricing policy can be relied on by him as a contribution by him to the profits unrelated to the patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the profits of the whole canister and closure are fairly traceable to the use by the infringer of the invention.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 149">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 149">interlocutory decision of single judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 149">guillotine order under o 35a r 3(1)(c) federal court rules dismissing proceedings in event of non-payment of taxed interlocutory costs by appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 149">whether judge erred in exercise of discretion under o 35a r 3(1)(c)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 149">whether possible impecuniosity of appellant precludes dismissal of proceedings in such circumstances held: appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 149">primary judge properly exercised discretion in o 35a r 3(1)(c)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 149">justice between the parties is paramount</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCAFC 149" id="cs0">2 The proceedings the subject of this appeal have been on foot for almost three years. Relevant background facts appear in the judgments of Dowsett J ( Welsh [2007] FCA 2064) and Collier J ( Welsh v Digilin Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 78) , and may be summarised as follows:

• The substantive application in these proceedings was filed in 2005, although the claims of the appellant relate to events occurring from the mid 1990s. • The matter was set down for trial before Dowsett J in April 2006, however the trial dates were vacated after the appellant indicated that he intended to raise new issues in the proceedings. • The matter was re-listed for trial before the primary judge in October 2006, however the appellant indicated that amendment to the statement of claim would be required. 6 On 18 February 2008 Collier J ordered that leave to appeal be granted from the decision of his Honour ( Welsh [2008] FCA 78).
 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 10 Appropriation</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 24 Appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 109">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 109">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 109">review by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 109">whether letter sent by refugee review tribunal information for the purposes of s 424(2) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 109">whether procedures set out in s 424b of migration act applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2009] FMCA 777">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2009] FMCA 777">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2009] FMCA 777">protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2009] FMCA 777">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2009] FMCA 777">application for review of rrt decision affirming decision of a delegate of the minister refusing to grant a protection visa to the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2009] FMCA 777">applicant is a citizen of pakistan claiming fear of persecution for being a member of a particular religion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2009] FMCA 777">did not attend tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2009] FMCA 777">letter written by tribunal to applicant acknowledging receipt of application for review not an invitation to provide additional information under migration act 1958 (cth) s.424</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2009] FMCA 777">no jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2009] FMCA 693">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2009] FMCA 693">review of rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2009] FMCA 693">where transcript of hearing showed omissions of interpretation and translations of words that were not actually spoken</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2009] FMCA 693">whether standard of interpretation so inadequate as to amount to a breach of s.425</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2009] FMCA 693">whether tribunal failed to take into account relevant evidence.  "acknowledgement of application" letter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2009] FMCA 693">where letter contained an invitation to provide information "immediately" without specifying the prescribed period for response</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2009] FMCA 693">whether that letter contained an invitation to provide additional information written pursuant to s.424(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2009] FMCA 693">whether failure to indicate the prescribed period in breach of s.424b constitutes a jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2009] FMCA 589">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2009] FMCA 589">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2009] FMCA 589">protection (class xa) visa.  practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2009] FMCA 589">judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2009] FMCA 589">set aside judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2009] FMCA 589">application to set aside judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2009] FMCA 589">where applicant had not attended court on the hearing day</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2009] FMCA 589">where applicant gave explanation for non-attendance.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2009] FMCA 316">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2009] FMCA 316">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2009] FMCA 316">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2009] FMCA 316">interlocutory dismissal of reinstatement application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2009] FMCA 316">non appearance by the applicants.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1811">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1811">tribunal is obliged to address the applicant's claims but is not obliged to consider every assertion of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1811">applicant notified of inadequacy of information provided to the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1811">non-attendance at tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1811">inevitable result of non-attendance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1811">s 424a(1) and (2) complied with</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1811">reason for the decision the absence of information provided not the information itself</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1811">tribunal decision not dependent on disparity between the visa application and the claims made by the applicant to the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs v sglb  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">expert medical advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">psychological state of applicant assumed to be possible explanation for unsatisfactory evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">whether denial of procedural fairness by failing to order further psychological assessment of applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">whether denial of procedural fairness by accepting that applicant suffered stress disorder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">whether denial of procedural fairness by acceptance of effects of disorder on applicant without expert medical advice.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">privative clause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">whether putative errors of the refugee review tribunal fell within the operation of s 474 of the migration act 1958 (cth).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424 Tribunal may seek information</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 426A Failure of applicant to appear before Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">re the minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte durairajasingham  immigration law and administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">refugee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">refugee review tribunal decision refusing to grant protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">application in original jurisdiction of high court for prerogative relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations and evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether tribunal failed to consider all available inferences from evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">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="cp0.7">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="cp0.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">role of the high court under the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">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="cp1.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">discretionary power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">right to be heard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">requirement of procedural fairness in initial licence grant process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">distinction between initial grant and renewal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">fit and proper person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">evaluation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether evaluation based upon materials supplied by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">need to identify critical issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">third party materials</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">opportunity to rebutt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">consistent with admissions by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">improper exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether fettered by rule of policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether evidence of rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">refusal of licence to retail "x" videos</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">revenue raising statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">fit and proper person requirement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">applicant trading in breach of act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.20">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether applicant not a fit and proper person to hold a licence.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">appointment of judicial officers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">abolition of one set of inferior courts and substitution of another</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">policy to appoint stipendiary magistrates of former courts as magistrates of new courts unless unfit for judicial office</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">decision not to appoint former stipendiary magistrate set aside for failure to accord natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">reconsideration of case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">change of appointment policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">applicants to be judged on merit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">whether former stipendiary magistrate entitled to reconsideration of application on basis of former or current policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">local courts act 1982 (n.s.w.), s. 12.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1280">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1280">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1280">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1280">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1280">application for review of rrt decision affirming a decision of a delegate of the minister not to grant a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1280">applicant is a citizen of the people's republic of china claiming fear of persecution because she wrote a report about the condition of falun gong practitioners in a detention centre</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1280">no reviewable error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2006] HCA 63">szbel v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2006] HCA 63">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2006] HCA 63">protection visa decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2006] HCA 63">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant claimed he feared persecution on basis of his conversion to christianity if returned to iran</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2006] HCA 63">delegate of the first respondent refused to grant appellant protection visa because not satisfied of the genuineness of appellant's conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2006] HCA 63">review by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant invited by tribunal to give evidence relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">citing from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant gave evidence addressed to the delegate's concern regarding the genuineness of his conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">citing from="[2006] HCA 63">tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant a protection visa on the basis that appellant's claims were not credible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">citing from="[2006] HCA 63">whether tribunal failed to notify the appellant adequately of the issues to which its reasoning processes were directed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">citing from="[2006] HCA 63">whether failure of tribunal to ask the appellant to address issues that it considered might be important amounted to a denial of procedural fairness.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1280" id="cs0">I am mindful of the requirements of SZBEL v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 59.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] HCA 63" id="cs1">Of that ground his Honour said [8] that:

"A decision-maker such as the Tribunal was obliged to advise a person such as the Appellant of any adverse conclusion which would not obviously be open on the known material.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 36 Protection visas</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 91R Persecution</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>