Datasets:

Ramitha

/

entity_extraction

like 0

In the case Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, what was the court's decision, and how does this compare to the situation in the case filed by AA Shi Pty Ltd where the applicant sought leave to carry on the proceeding otherwise than by a solicitor?

In the case Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, the Federal Court of Australia ordered that the Application be dismissed with costs. This case was filed by Econ Holdings Pty Ltd, trading as Billbusters Holdings, against Sims Lockwood & Partners. In the case filed by AA Shi Pty Ltd, the applicant sought leave to carry on the proceeding otherwise than by a solicitor, according to Order 4, rule 14(2) of the Federal Court Rules. This request was made because the applicant was not in a financial position to pay for legal representation, and the sole director of the company, Mr. David Yahalom, was fully aware of the proceedings and was prepared to proceed with the trial. The two cases differ in their requests and outcomes. The first case involved a dispute between two parties and ultimately resulted in the dismissal of the application with costs. The second case involved a request by the applicant to proceed without a solicitor due to financial constraints.

Named Entities: 1. Case: Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368 2. Case: AA Shi Pty Ltd Metadata: 1. Year: 1999 2. Court: Federal Court of Australia (FCA)

Named Entities: 1. Econ Holdings Pty Ltd 2. Sims Lockwood & Partners 3. AA Shi Pty Ltd 4. Billbusters Holdings 5. Federal Court of Australia 6. Mr. David Yahalom Metadata: 1. Case Name: Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners 2. Case Citation: [1999] FCA 368 3. Legal Rule: Order 4, rule 14(2) of the Federal Court Rules 4. Outcome: Dismissal of the Application with costs 5. Context: Dispute resolution in the Federal Court of Australia 6. Key Individuals: Mr. David Yahalom (sole director of AA Shi Pty Ltd)

Considering the balance of public interest and the potential impact on individuals, should the specific details in Events 38832023 and 3860136 be disclosed to the public?

The details in Events 38832023 and 3860136 include personal information such as date of birth, address, and license number. According to the principles outlined in the GIPA Act, this information is typically only known by the individual and its disclosure would reveal personal information. While there is a significant public interest in disclosure of information related to the Sydney Light Rail Delivery Office, especially concerning problems with stakeholders and criticisms, this must be balanced against the potential harm to individuals. In this case, the information sought in Events 38832023 and 3860136 does not directly relate to the management of the Sydney Light Rail project or its progress. Transport for NSW has not demonstrated how the disclosure of such personal information would make the exercise of its functions less effective. While it's accepted that disclosure could potentially damage relationships with stakeholders, there is no concrete evidence to suggest that this would significantly impact the effectiveness of the Sydney Light Rail Delivery Office. Therefore, considering the potential invasion of privacy and lack of direct relevance to the project, it is not appropriate to disclose the specific details in Events 38832023 and 3860136 to the public. The public interest in disclosure does not outweigh the potential harm to the individuals involved.

Named Entities: - Event 38832023 - Event 3860136 Metadata: - Topic: Disclosure of specific details in two events - Consideration: Balance of public interest and impact on individuals

Named Entities: 1. Events 38832023 2. Events 3860136 3. GIPA Act 4. Sydney Light Rail Delivery Office 5. Transport for NSW Metadata: 1. Date: Not specified 2. Location: Sydney 3. Organization: Transport for NSW 4. Legislation: GIPA Act

In two separate cases heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, both falling under the jurisdiction of Equity, what were the decisions made by Slattery J and Einstein J respectively, and what were the representations for the parties involved in each case?

In the case of Mekhail v Hana; Mekail v Hana; In the Estate of Nadia Mekhail [2017] NSWSC 575, heard by Slattery J on 10 May 2017, the decision was that court reporting was preferred, subject to the resource constraints of the Court. The parties involved in this case were Magdy Mekhail (Plaintiff) and Georgette Hana (Defendant) in 2015/186751, and Youssef Shoukry Wardakhan Mekail (Plaintiff) and Georgette Hana (Defendant) in 2015/310332. The representation for the parties in 2015/186751 was J. Thomson for the Plaintiff and D. Allen for the Defendant, with solicitors John Kambas, P.K. Simpson & Co for the Plaintiff. In the case of The City of Sydney v Streetscape Projects (Australia) Pty Limited & Anor [2011] NSWSC 993, heard by Einstein J on 25 August 2011, the decision was that the plaintiff's objection was upheld and the defendants' application to vary orders was dismissed. The parties involved in this case were The City of Sydney (Plaintiff), Streetscape Projects (Australia) Pty Limited (First Defendant), and Moses Edward Obeid (Second Defendant). The representation for the parties in this case was Mr T Jucovic QC, Mr S Climpson, Mr C Bova for the Plaintiff and Mr S Couper QC, Mr J Gooley, Mr R Higgins for the Defendants, with solicitors Holding Redlich for the Plaintiff and Colin Biggers & Paisley for the Defendants.

Named Entities: 1. Supreme Court of New South Wales 2. Equity 3. Slattery J 4. Einstein J I couldn't identify specific metadata such as the names of the cases or the parties involved in the cases from the provided text. If you can provide more details or context, I can try to extract more information.

Named Entities: 1. Case: Mekhail v Hana; Mekail v Hana; In the Estate of Nadia Mekhail [2017] NSWSC 575 2. Judge: Slattery J 3. Parties: - Magdy Mekhail (Plaintiff) - Georgette Hana (Defendant) - Youssef Shoukry Wardakhan Mekail (Plaintiff) 4. Solicitors: - J. Thomson - D. Allen - John Kambas, P.K. Simpson & Co 5. Case: The City of Sydney v Streetscape Projects (Australia) Pty Limited & Anor [2011] NSWSC 993 6. Judge: Einstein J 7. Parties: - The City of Sydney (Plaintiff) - Streetscape Projects (Australia) Pty Limited (First Defendant) - Moses Edward Obeid (Second Defendant) 8. Solicitors: - Mr T Jucovic QC, Mr S Climpson, Mr C Bova - Mr S Couper QC, Mr J Gooley, Mr R Higgins - Holding Redlich - Colin Biggers & Paisley Metadata: 1. Date of Mekhail v Hana case: 10 May 2017 2. Case number for Magdy Mekhail and Georgette Hana: 2015/186751 3. Case number for Youssef Shoukry Wardakhan Mekail and Georgette Hana: 2015/310332 4. Date of The City of Sydney v Streetscape Projects case: 25 August 2011

In the context of the Federal Court Rules, how does an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) affect the commencement of proceedings, and how does this interpretation differ from the proposition presented in the case of Laing v Victoria (2005) 144 FCR 462, particularly in relation to the substitution or amendment of a party incorrectly named?

According to the judgment of Gordon J, an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) takes effect from the commencement of the proceedings. This interpretation is based on the understanding that while changing the name or identity of a party could be seen as a 'substitution' in a technical sense, it does not constitute a substitution of 'another person' as per rule 8.22. Therefore, any changes, even minor ones like correcting a spelling error, would not take effect from the date of the amendment. This is in contrast to the proposition presented in Laing v Victoria (2005) 144 FCR 462, where it was suggested that the amendment or substitution of a party incorrectly named would not be allowed if it would deprive the opposite party of a limitation period. However, this proposition is not accepted in this context due to the inclusion of rules 8.21(1)(d) and 8.21(2) in the Federal Court Rules. In the Laing case, Merkel J found that there was no mistake in either name or identity, further distinguishing it from the current interpretation.

Named Entities: 1. Federal Court Rules 2. Rule 8.21(1)(d) 3. Laing v Victoria (2005) 144 FCR 462 Metadata: 1. Legal context 2. Amendment under Rule 8.21(1)(d) 3. Commencement of proceedings 4. Interpretation of amendment in Laing v Victoria case 5. Substitution or amendment of a party incorrectly named

Named Entities: 1. Gordon J 2. Laing v Victoria (2005) 144 FCR 462 3. Merkel J Metadata: 1. Legal context 2. Rule 8.21(1)(d) and Rule 8.22 of the Federal Court Rules 3. Interpretation of amendments in legal proceedings 4. Comparison of different judicial interpretations

What are the specific models of Hiller UH-12 Series Helicopters and Cessna 210 Series Aeroplanes that require inspections as per the Airworthiness Directives, and what are the respective inspection documents and compliance requirements for each?

For the Hiller UH-12 Series Helicopters, the Airworthiness Directive applies to all model UH-12E helicopters. The inspection document for this directive is Hiller SIL No. 3036C. The compliance requirement is as detailed in the requirement document. For the Cessna 210 Series Aeroplanes, the Airworthiness Directive applies to two specific models. The first is the Model T210 with serial numbers (S/Nos.) ranging from T210-0001 to T210-0454. The second is the Model 210 with S/Nos. 21058140, and from 21059200 to 21063954. The inspection documents for this directive are either Cessna SIL No. SE 80-24 or FAA AD 80-07-01, Amdt. 39-3719. The compliance requirement is within 100 hours time in service after 30 June 1980. This directive is issued to prevent a failure of the turbocharger anti-rotation pin and its ingestion into the scavenge pump, which could potentially cause a failure of the pressure and scavenge pumps.

Named Entities: 1. Hiller UH-12 Series Helicopters 2. Cessna 210 Series Aeroplanes Metadata: - Topic: Airworthiness Directives - Request: Specific models requiring inspections and their respective inspection documents and compliance requirements.

Named Entities: 1. Hiller UH-12 Series Helicopters 2. UH-12E helicopters 3. Hiller SIL No. 3036C 4. Cessna 210 Series Aeroplanes 5. Model T210 6. Model 210 7. Cessna SIL No. SE 80-24 8. FAA AD 80-07-01, Amdt. 39-3719 Metadata: 1. Compliance requirement for Hiller UH-12E helicopters: Detailed in the requirement document 2. Compliance requirement for Cessna 210 Series Aeroplanes: Within 100 hours time in service after 30 June 1980 3. Purpose of the directive: To prevent a failure of the turbocharger anti-rotation pin and its ingestion into the scavenge pump, which could potentially cause a failure of the pressure and scavenge pumps.

How does the sentencing structure differ under the old and new forms of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, and how was this applied in a case where the offender was an Aboriginal individual arrested on 24th May 2002?

The old form of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, which applied to all offences committed up to and including 1st February 2003, required the court to first set the term of the sentence and then the non-parole period. The non-parole period had to be not less than three quarters of the term of the sentence unless special circumstances justified it being less. The new form of the section, which applies to offences committed after 1st February 2003, requires the court to first set a non-parole period and then the balance of the term of the sentence. The balance must not exceed one-third of the non-parole period unless special circumstances justify it. In the case of the Aboriginal individual arrested on 24th May 2002, the sentencing was done under the old regime, as the offence was committed before the change in the law. The judge, in this case, identified the age of the respondent, the fact that he was Aboriginal, and the need for ongoing rehabilitation as justifying a sentencing structure in which the parole period exceeded one quarter of the head sentence. This suggests a deviation from the standard old form of sentencing, likely due to the special circumstances of the case. The sentencing was also backdated for a period of six months from the date of imposition, though no explanation was given for how this commencement date was selected or calculated.

Named Entities: - Legislation: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act - Section: Section 44 - Offender: Aboriginal individual - Date: 24th May 2002 Metadata: - Topic: Sentencing structure under Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act - Date: 24th May 2002

Named Entities: 1. Section 44 2. Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 3. Aboriginal individual 4. Judge Metadata: 1. Date: 1st February 2003 2. Offence date: 24th May 2002 3. Duration: six months 4. Legal context: Sentencing procedures 5. Special circumstances: Age, Aboriginality, need for ongoing rehabilitation

What are the specific requirements for Boeing 747 Series Aeroplanes and DH114 (Heron) Series Aeroplanes as per the Airworthiness Directives from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority of Australia?

For Boeing 747 Series Aeroplanes, the Airworthiness Directive AD/B747/24 requires modification of the Rear Fuselage Stringers S18 and S19. This applies to all models listed in Boeing SB 747-53-2114 under groups I and II, and those under group III if engines of thrust greater than 50000 lb. are installed. The modification should be done in accordance with either FAA AD 80-20-01 Amdt. 39-3927 or Boeing SB 747-53-2114, Rev. 3. The compliance deadline was set prior to 31 January 1981. The background of this directive is that with installed thrust greater than 50000 lb., failure of an outer engine would require extreme rudder trim, causing excessive loads to be applied to stringers 18 and 19 in the rear fuselage. The Directive requires local reinforcement of these stringers by nesting a radius filler inside. For DH114 (Heron) Series Aeroplanes, the Airworthiness Directive AD/DH114/28 requires an inspection of the Flap Datum Hinge Safety Washer. This applies to all models. The inspection should be done in accordance with the document Hawker Siddeley TNS Heron (114) No. CF.13. The compliance is required forthwith, which means immediately or without delay.

Named Entities: 1. Boeing 747 Series Aeroplanes 2. DH114 (Heron) Series Aeroplanes 3. Civil Aviation Safety Authority of Australia Metadata: - Topic: Airworthiness Directives for Boeing 747 Series Aeroplanes and DH114 (Heron) Series Aeroplanes - Location: Australia - Authority: Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Entities: 1. Boeing 747 Series Aeroplanes 2. Airworthiness Directive AD/B747/24 3. Rear Fuselage Stringers S18 and S19 4. Boeing SB 747-53-2114 5. FAA AD 80-20-01 Amdt. 39-3927 6. Boeing SB 747-53-2114, Rev. 3 7. DH114 (Heron) Series Aeroplanes 8. Airworthiness Directive AD/DH114/28 9. Flap Datum Hinge Safety Washer 10. Hawker Siddeley TNS Heron (114) No. CF.13 Metadata: - Compliance deadline for Boeing 747 Series Aeroplanes modification: prior to 31 January 1981 - Requirement for Boeing 747 Series Aeroplanes modification: local reinforcement of stringers 18 and 19 by nesting a radius filler inside - Requirement for DH114 (Heron) Series Aeroplanes inspection: inspection of the Flap Datum Hinge Safety Washer - Compliance requirement for DH114 (Heron) Series Aeroplanes inspection: forthwith (immediately or without delay)

What are the key differences in the applicability and compliance requirements between the Airworthiness Directive (AD) revoked and issued for Fokker F28 Series Aeroplanes and the AD for Pilatus Porter PC-6 Series Aeroplanes as per the Civil Aviation Regulations 1998 of the Commonwealth of Australia?

The Airworthiness Directive (AD) for Fokker F28 Series Aeroplanes, specifically AD/F28/77 Amdt 1, mentions that the previous AD/F28/77 is revoked and a new one is issued under subregulation 39.1 (1) of CAR 1998. The AD for Pilatus Porter PC-6 Series Aeroplanes, specifically AD/PC-6/13, clearly states its applicability and compliance requirements. It is applicable to all models prior to S/Nos. 621 not modified in accordance with SB No. 67. The compliance requirement is to inspect the elevator attachment bracket with the aid of dye penetrant at intervals not exceeding 100 hours time in service after 15 January 1967. This inspection should be done in accordance with Pilatus SB No. 67. Therefore, without further information, we can only conclude that the AD for the Pilatus Porter PC-6 Series Aeroplanes has specific applicability and compliance requirements.

Named Entities: 1. Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2. Fokker F28 Series Aeroplanes 3. Pilatus Porter PC-6 Series Aeroplanes 4. Civil Aviation Regulations 1998 5. Commonwealth of Australia Metadata: - Topic: Airworthiness Directives for Fokker F28 Series Aeroplanes and Pilatus Porter PC-6 Series Aeroplanes - Jurisdiction: Commonwealth of Australia - Regulation: Civil Aviation Regulations 1998

Named Entities: 1. Fokker F28 Series Aeroplanes 2. AD/F28/77 Amdt 1 3. AD/F28/77 4. CAR 1998 5. Pilatus Porter PC-6 Series Aeroplanes 6. AD/PC-6/13 7. SB No. 67 Metadata: - The text discusses Airworthiness Directives (AD) for Fokker F28 Series Aeroplanes and Pilatus Porter PC-6 Series Aeroplanes. - Specific AD references are mentioned, such as AD/F28/77 Amdt 1 and AD/PC-6/13. - Compliance requirements for the AD related to Pilatus Porter PC-6 Series Aeroplanes are detailed, including inspection intervals and procedures. - The AD for Pilatus Porter PC-6 Series Aeroplanes applies to models prior to S/Nos. 621 not modified in accordance with SB No. 67.

In the judgments made by Commissioner Susan Dixon and Commissioner Annelise Tuor, what are the common procedures followed as per the Land and Environment Court Act 1979, and how do the final orders differ in their accessibility?

Both Commissioner Susan Dixon and Commissioner Annelise Tuor followed similar procedures in their judgments as per the Land and Environment Court Act 1979. They both presided over conciliation conferences where agreements under s 34(3) of the Court Act were reached between the parties. They were satisfied that the decisions were ones that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, and thus, they disposed of the proceedings in accordance with the decisions as required by s 34(3)(a) of the Act. They also set out in writing the terms of the decisions as required by s 34(3)(b) of the Act, with the orders made to give effect to the agreements constituting these documents. Neither Commissioner made a merit assessment of the issues originally in dispute between the parties. However, the accessibility of the final orders differs between the two judgments. In the case of Commissioner Susan Dixon, the final orders to give effect to the parties' agreement includes the partial upholding of the appeal in respect of the property known as Lot 122 in Deposited Plan 709303 at 41 – 47 Jolly Street, Castlereagh, the approval of Modification Application No. DA14 / 0622.02 subject to the modified conditions contained in Annexure “A”, and the subjecting of Development Consent DA 14 / 0622 to the consolidated modified conditions of development consent set out in Annexure “B”. In contrast, in the case of Commissioner Annelise Tuor, the final orders to give effect to the parties' agreement are not directly outlined. Instead, it is stated that the final orders were made on the date recorded on those orders, and a copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through a provided link. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders. Therefore, to access the details of the final orders in this case, one would need to follow the provided link and refer to the stated documents.

Named Entities: 1. Commissioner Susan Dixon 2. Commissioner Annelise Tuor 3. Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Metadata: 1. Topic: Judgments and procedures under the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 2. Commissioners: Susan Dixon and Annelise Tuor 3. Timeframe: Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Named Entities: 1. Commissioner Susan Dixon 2. Commissioner Annelise Tuor 3. Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Metadata: 1. Date: The text discusses judgments made by Commissioner Susan Dixon and Commissioner Annelise Tuor in accordance with the Land and Environment Court Act 1979. 2. Legal Procedures: The text describes the procedures followed by the commissioners in reaching agreements between parties and making decisions as required by the Act. 3. Locations: The text mentions a property known as Lot 122 in Deposited Plan 709303 at 41-47 Jolly Street, Castlereagh. 4. Legal Documents: The text refers to Annexure "A" and Annexure "B" containing modified conditions, as well as final orders made by the commissioners.

In the two separate development application cases held in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales in 2018, who were the applicants, respondents, and their respective representations in each case?

In the first case, Carlton Crescent Development Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1525, the applicant was Carlton Crescent Development Pty Ltd, represented by M Sonter from Mills Oakley. The respondent was Inner West Council, represented by M Bonnano from Inner West Council. In the second case, Groves v Lake Macquarie City Council [2018] NSWLEC 1211, the applicant was David James Groves, represented by T Pickup from Local Government Legal. The respondent was Lake Macquarie City Council, represented by C Doyle from McDonald Johnson Lawyers. Both cases were held under Class 1 jurisdiction and resulted in a conciliation conference, with orders made following an agreement between the parties.

To provide a more accurate answer, I would need the specific names of the two development application cases held in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales in 2018. Could you please provide the names or any additional details about the cases?

Named Entities: 1. Case 1: - Applicant: Carlton Crescent Development Pty Ltd - Applicant's Representative: M Sonter from Mills Oakley - Respondent: Inner West Council - Respondent's Representative: M Bonnano from Inner West Council 2. Case 2: - Applicant: David James Groves - Applicant's Representative: T Pickup from Local Government Legal - Respondent: Lake Macquarie City Council - Respondent's Representative: C Doyle from McDonald Johnson Lawyers Metadata: - Case 1 Citation: [2018] NSWLEC 1525 - Case 2 Citation: [2018] NSWLEC 1211 - Both cases were held under Class 1 jurisdiction. - Both cases resulted in a conciliation conference, with orders made following an agreement between the parties.

In the case involving Dromore Properties Pty Ltd and Byron Shire Council, what was the outcome of the conciliation conference and what orders were made by the presiding Commissioner?

The case between Dromore Properties Pty Ltd and Byron Shire Council was resolved at a conciliation conference where the parties reached an agreement under Section 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979. The presiding Commissioner, satisfied that the decision was one the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, disposed of the proceedings in accordance with the decision as required by Section 34(3)(a) of the Act. The Commissioner was not required to make a merit assessment of the issues originally in dispute between the parties. The final orders made to give effect to the parties' agreement under Section 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 granted the Applicant leave to amend the section 96 modification application by substituting certain amended plans and documents, including architectural plans prepared by Max Wessels, project no. 2313.

Named Entities: 1. Dromore Properties Pty Ltd 2. Byron Shire Council Metadata: 1. Legal case 2. Conciliation conference 3. Presiding Commissioner

Named Entities: 1. Dromore Properties Pty Ltd 2. Byron Shire Council 3. Section 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 4. Commissioner 5. Max Wessels Metadata: - The case was resolved at a conciliation conference. - The agreement was reached under Section 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979. - The Commissioner disposed of the proceedings in accordance with the decision as required by Section 34(3)(a) of the Act. - The Commissioner was not required to make a merit assessment of the issues originally in dispute. - Final orders were made to give effect to the parties' agreement under Section 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979. - The Applicant was granted leave to amend the section 96 modification application by substituting certain amended plans and documents, including architectural plans prepared by Max Wessels, project no. 2313.

What were the grounds for review in the applicant's case that was brought against the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, and how did the Tribunal initially respond to the applicant's request for a protection visa?

The applicant brought an Application for Review against the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT), which was made on 27 June 2000 and handed down on 12 July 2000. The RRT had affirmed the decision of the delegate of the Minister not to grant the Applicant a protection visa, as they were not satisfied that the Applicant was a refugee within the Convention definition. The grounds for review were originally expressed as follows: 1) The Tribunal demonstrated actual bias in the manner in which it accepted and rejected the evidence presented by the applicant in support of his application for refugee status, providing grounds for review under s476 (1)(f) Migration Act 1958 (the Act). 2) The Tribunal did not adhere to the procedure required under s430(1) of the Act, which requires the Tribunal, in making a finding of fact, to refer to the evidence or any other material on which the findings of fact were based. 3) The Tribunal made an error of law under s476(1)(e) of the Act in finding that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution, should he return to Bangladesh, because he is Bihari and for his political opinions. The RRT initially responded to the applicant's request for a protection visa by affirming the decision of the delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa, as they were not satisfied that the Applicant was a refugee within the Convention definition.

Named Entities: - Refugee Review Tribunal - protection visa Metadata: - The text is discussing a legal case involving an applicant seeking a protection visa. - The case involves a review of a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal. - The text mentions the grounds for review in the applicant's case. - It also mentions the initial response of the Tribunal to the applicant's request for a protection visa.

Named Entities: 1. Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) 2. Minister 3. Migration Act 1958 4. Bangladesh 5. Bihari Metadata: 1. Date: The decision of the RRT was made on 27 June 2000 and handed down on 12 July 2000. 2. Legal Grounds for Review: - Actual bias in accepting and rejecting evidence - Failure to adhere to required procedures - Error of law in finding fear of persecution 3. Location: Bangladesh

Which aircraft models, specifically those with Hartzell variable pitch propellers and Eurocopter AS 350 series helicopters, need to comply with airworthiness directives related to blade inspections and tail rotor drive shaft bearings respectively, and what are their respective compliance deadlines?

For Hartzell variable pitch propellers, the airworthiness directive applies to all blades identified with the letter “H” after the blade design number as follows: T10173H, T10176H, T10178H, and T10282H, excluding certain serial numbered propellers. The compliance deadline for blades with less than 1000 hours time in service is within 100 hours time in service after 31 July 1974. For Eurocopter AS 350 series helicopters, the airworthiness directive applies to all AS 350 helicopters versions B, D, B1, B2, L1 and AVEX equipped with P/N P.9107.NPP7 FAFNIR tail rotor drive shaft bearings not marked with an “X” on the seal flange. The compliance deadline is by 30 August 1991 or prior to issue of Australian C of A, whichever occurs first. This directive is specifically for aircraft acceptance tested by Aerospatiale Marignane between 15 May 1991 and 20 July 1991 or prior to 15 May 1991 and have operated less than 100 hours time in service.

Aircraft models with Hartzell variable pitch propellers that need to comply with airworthiness directives related to blade inspections include the Beechcraft Bonanza and Baron series. The compliance deadline for these directives varies depending on the specific directive and the model of the aircraft. Eurocopter AS 350 series helicopters need to comply with airworthiness directives related to tail rotor drive shaft bearings. The compliance deadline for these directives also varies depending on the specific directive and the model of the helicopter.

Named Entities: 1. Hartzell variable pitch propellers 2. T10173H 3. T10176H 4. T10178H 5. T10282H 6. Eurocopter AS 350 series helicopters 7. AS 350 helicopters 8. P/N P.9107.NPP7 FAFNIR tail rotor drive shaft bearings 9. Aerospatiale Marignane Metadata: 1. Compliance deadline for Hartzell variable pitch propellers with less than 1000 hours time in service: within 100 hours time in service after 31 July 1974. 2. Compliance deadline for Eurocopter AS 350 series helicopters: by 30 August 1991 or prior to issue of Australian C of A, whichever occurs first. 3. Directive specifically for aircraft acceptance tested by Aerospatiale Marignane between 15 May 1991 and 20 July 1991 or prior to 15 May 1991 and have operated less than 100 hours time in service.

In the Australian Federal Court case Auvex Resources Ltd, in the matter of Auvex Resources Ltd [2011] FCA 820, which sections of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) were referenced, and in a separate case involving Allstate IT Pty Ltd (Administrator Appointed) (ACN 050 041 837), which section of the same Act was used to extend the convening period?

In the case of Auvex Resources Ltd, in the matter of Auvex Resources Ltd [2011] FCA 820, the sections of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) that were referenced included s 411(4)(b), 411(11), 12, and 17, among others. However, the specific section used to extend the convening period was not mentioned in this case. In contrast, the case involving Allstate IT Pty Ltd (Administrator Appointed) (ACN 050 041 837) made use of section 439A(6) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to extend the convening period from 7 July 2011 to 13 July 2011. This extension was granted pursuant to the mentioned section of the Act.

Entities: 1. Australian Federal Court 2. Auvex Resources Ltd 3. Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) 4. Allstate IT Pty Ltd 5. Administrator Appointed Metadata: 1. Case citation: Auvex Resources Ltd [2011] FCA 820 2. ACN (Australian Company Number): 050 041 837

Named Entities: 1. Auvex Resources Ltd 2. Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) 3. Allstate IT Pty Ltd 4. Administrator Appointed 5. ACN 050 041 837 Metadata: 1. Court case: Auvex Resources Ltd [2011] FCA 820 2. Sections of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) referenced: s 411(4)(b), 411(11), 12, 17, 439A(6) 3. Convening period extension: Allstate IT Pty Ltd extended from 7 July 2011 to 13 July 2011

What are the key differences in the court orders and reasons for judgment between two separate cases, one involving the appointment of provisional liquidators for a company and the other involving the approval of a scheme of arrangement between a plaintiff and ordinary shareholders?

The first case involved the appointment of provisional liquidators, Mr. Darren John Vardy and Mr. Terry Grant van der Velde, for a company named Darren Berry International Marine Pty Ltd (DBI) following an application by a creditor, Mr. Peter Carr. This appointment was made under Section 472(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) after Mr. Carr had filed a winding up application that had not yet been determined. The court emphasized that the appointment of a provisional liquidator is a drastic remedy, but the law allows for a broad range of circumstances that might warrant its exercise, similar to the principles regarding the grant of urgent injunctive relief. The decision required a reasonable prospect that a winding up would ultimately be made and the balance of convenience must favor the making of the order. In contrast, the second case involved the approval of a scheme of arrangement between the plaintiff and the holders of ordinary shares in the plaintiff (excluding A.C.N. 614 507 247 Pty Ltd). This approval was granted pursuant to s 411(4)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The court ordered an alteration to the definition of Excluded Shareholder in Schedule 1 of the scheme to specifically name A.C.N. 614 507 247 Pty Ltd. The plaintiff was also exempted from compliance with s 411(11) of the Act in relation to the Scheme, and was directed to lodge a copy of the approved Scheme with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission at the time of lodging a copy of these orders. The plaintiff and Superloop Limited intended to rely on the Court’s approval of the Scheme for the purpose of qualifying for exemption from the registration requirements of the US Securities Act of 1933. In summary, while both cases involved court orders under the Corporations Act 2001, they dealt with different aspects of corporate law: the first with the appointment of provisional liquidators in anticipation of a company winding up, and the second with the approval of a scheme of arrangement between a company and its shareholders.

Named Entities: 1. Provisional liquidators 2. Company 3. Scheme of arrangement 4. Plaintiff 5. Ordinary shareholders Metadata: 1. Legal proceedings 2. Court orders 3. Reasons for judgment 4. Comparison of two separate cases

Named Entities: 1. Mr. Darren John Vardy 2. Mr. Terry Grant van der Velde 3. Darren Berry International Marine Pty Ltd (DBI) 4. Mr. Peter Carr 5. A.C.N. 614 507 247 Pty Ltd 6. Australian Securities and Investments Commission 7. Superloop Limited 8. US Securities Act of 1933 Metadata: 1. Law: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) 2. Sections of the Corporations Act mentioned: Section 472(2), s 411(4)(b), s 411(11) 3. Legal actions: appointment of provisional liquidators, winding up application, approval of a scheme of arrangement 4. Jurisdiction: Australia

What is the legislative instrument used for changing the responsible entity as per the Corporations Act 2001, and what is the specific section under which a scheme of arrangement with shareholders can be approved in the same Act?

The legislative instrument used for changing the responsible entity as per the Corporations Act 2001 is the ASIC Corporations (Changing the Responsible Entity) Instrument 2023/681. This instrument is made under subsection 601QA(1) of the Corporations Act 2001. The specific section under which a scheme of arrangement with shareholders can be approved in the same Act is section 411(4)(b). This section controls the process by which the scheme may become binding and the Court has a broad discretion to approve the scheme under this section.

The legislative instrument used for changing the responsible entity as per the Corporations Act 2001 is a "responsible entity change instrument." The specific section under which a scheme of arrangement with shareholders can be approved in the same Act is Section 411.

Named Entities: 1. Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 2. Legislative Instrument: ASIC Corporations (Changing the Responsible Entity) Instrument 2023/681 Metadata: 1. Date: 2023 2. Section of the Corporations Act 2001: 601QA(1), 411(4)(b)

Considering the guidelines for assessing the seriousness of an offence, how would you categorize the offence committed by the individual who pleaded guilty to recklessly damaging the Corrective Services cell complex at 58 Frome Street, Moree, by means of fire on 24th October 2017, in terms of its objective seriousness within the spectrum of similar offences?

To categorize the objective seriousness of this offence, we need to consider several factors. Firstly, the offence took place on a single day while the offence involved property damage by means of fire. Secondly, the offender pleaded guilty upon arraignment, which suggests a level of acknowledgment and remorse for the offence. However, the exploitation of youth is not a factor in this case as it involves property damage, not an offence against a person. Lastly, the offence contravened s 195(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. The fact that there is no Standard Non-Parole Period suggests that the offence could fall anywhere within the spectrum of similar offences. However, the Crown submitted that the objective seriousness of the offending was, in the Crown’s submission, within the mid-range of offences, if not above the mid-range. This suggests that despite the lack of aggravating factors such as coercion or exploitation of youth, the offence is still considered seriously due to the nature of the damage caused and the potential risk to safety associated with damaging a correctional facility by means of fire. Therefore, based on these considerations, the offence could be placed within the mid-range to upper end of the spectrum of similar offences.

Named Entities: 1. Location: Corrective Services cell complex at 58 Frome Street, Moree 2. Date: 24th October 2017 Metadata: 1. Offence: Recklessly damaging the Corrective Services cell complex by means of fire 2. Date of Offence: 24th October 2017 3. Location of Offence: Corrective Services cell complex at 58 Frome Street, Moree

Named Entities: 1. Offence: property damage by means of fire 2. Offender 3. Crimes Act 1900 4. Crown Metadata: 1. Offence category: Property damage 2. Legal context: Crimes Act 1900 3. Maximum penalty: 10 years imprisonment 4. Standard Non-Parole Period: Not specified 5. Objective seriousness: Mid-range to upper end 6. Factors considered: Offence nature, guilty plea, lack of exploitation of youth, potential risk to safety

In the case involving an appeal to the Federal Magistrates Court, how did the court respond to the first ground of the amended application, which alleged that the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) had failed to give the appellant an opportunity to be heard in respect of its finding on medical evidence? Also, how did the Federal Court of Australia rule in the case SBAX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 582?

In response to the first ground of the amended application in the Federal Magistrates Court case, the court found that the RRT was not required to submit its conclusion regarding the medical evidence to the appellant for comment during the hearing. This was because the conclusion was not an 'issue' within the meaning of that term in s 425 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Furthermore, the court rejected this ground due to insufficient evidence to support it, as there was no transcript available.

Named Entities: 1. Federal Magistrates Court 2. Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) 3. Federal Court of Australia 4. SBAX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 582 Metadata: 1. Legal case involving an appeal to the Federal Magistrates Court 2. Allegation of failure to give the appellant an opportunity to be heard in respect of its finding on medical evidence 3. Case ruling by the Federal Court of Australia in SBAX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 582

Named Entities: 1. Federal Magistrates Court 2. RRT (Refugee Review Tribunal) 3. Migration Act 1958 (Cth) Metadata: 1. Court: Federal Magistrates Court 2. Legal Act: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) 3. Year: 1958

What are the similarities and differences in the circumstances and legal proceedings between the Iranian applicant and the Sri Lankan appellant, particularly in relation to their applications for protection visas?

Both the applicant and the appellant in sought protection visas in Australia under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), but their circumstances and the outcomes of their applications differ significantly. The Iranian applicant who arrived in Australia in November 2000 with his family. They applied for Protection (Class XA) visas, but their applications were refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. The applicant then lodged an application for review of this decision to the Refugee Review Tribunal, but the decision not to grant protection visas was affirmed. The applicant subsequently filed an application to the court for an order of review of the Tribunal's decision, relying on the grounds that the decision involved an error of law and that there was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision. On the other hand, the Sri Lankan appellant who arrived in Australia on a student visa to join her husband. She had experienced harassment in Sri Lanka due to her position as a married woman not residing with her husband, and she applied for a protection visa on the grounds that her past experiences would continue if she returned to Sri Lanka. However, the Tribunal upheld a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the appellant a protection visa, as the harm feared was not considered to be of such severity or gravity that it would cause a person to forsake their country of nationality and seek protection elsewhere. In summary, while both the applicants sought protection visas in Australia, the Iranian applicant was refused on the basis of an error of law or lack of evidence, whereas the Sri Lankan appellant was refused on the grounds that the harm feared was not severe enough to constitute persecution under the Convention as defined in the Act. Additionally, the Iranian applicant arrived in Australia with his family, while the Sri Lankan appellant arrived on a student visa to join her husband.

Named Entities: 1. Iranian applicant 2. Sri Lankan appellant 3. Iran 4. Sri Lanka Metadata: 1. Topic: Circumstances and legal proceedings of Iranian applicant and Sri Lankan appellant in relation to their applications for protection visas 2. Countries: Iran, Sri Lanka

Named Entities: 1. Iranian applicant 2. Australian 3. Migration Act 1958 (Cth) 4. Protection (Class XA) visas 5. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs 6. Refugee Review Tribunal 7. Sri Lankan appellant 8. Sri Lanka 9. Convention 10. Act Metadata: 1. Date: November 2000 2. Location: Australia 3. Legal Acts: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) 4. Legal Entities: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Refugee Review Tribunal 5. Nationalities: Iranian, Sri Lankan

In the case of CLJ17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 40, was there an allegation that the Tribunal failed to give the appellant an opportunity to be heard on a specific issue, and how was this matter addressed in a lower court?

Yes, in the case of CLJ17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 40, there was an allegation in an amended application to the Federal Magistrates Court that the Tribunal had failed to give the appellant an opportunity to be heard regarding its finding that there was no medical evidence confirming various injuries claimed by the appellant were inflicted for Convention-related reasons. This ground was addressed in the Federal Magistrates Court as an alleged breach of either s 425 or s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Federal Magistrate found that the RRT was not required to submit its conclusion regarding the medical evidence to the appellant for comment during the hearing because it was not an 'issue' within the meaning of that term in s 425. Furthermore, her Honour rejected this ground due to insufficient evidence to support it in the absence of any transcript. There was also no breach of s 424A found, as the RRT's 'thought processes' did not fall within the meaning of 'information' in s 424A(1).

Named Entity: - Case: CLJ17 v Minister for Home Affairs - Court: Federal Court of Australia - Citation: [2020] FCA 40 Metadata: - Year: 2020 - Issue: Allegation of failure to give the appellant an opportunity to be heard on a specific issue - Lower Court: Federal Court of Australia

Named Entities: 1. CLJ17 2. Minister for Home Affairs 3. Federal Magistrates Court 4. Tribunal 5. Migration Act 1958 (Cth) 6. RRT (Refugee Review Tribunal) Metadata: 1. Case Name: CLJ17 v Minister for Home Affairs 2. Case Citation: [2020] FCA 40 3. Legal Acts: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) 4. Year: 2020

What are the specific requirements for compliance and applicability in the Airworthiness Directives for GAF N22 and N24 Series Aeroplanes (AD/GAF-N22/26) and SAAB SF340 Series Aeroplanes (AD/SF340/6 Amdt 1)?

For the GAF N22 and N24 Series Aeroplanes (AD/GAF-N22/26), the Airworthiness Directive applies to all models N22, N22B, N24, and N24A with Mod. N39 fitted and delivered before 1 March 1979. Compliance is required within 50 hours time in service after 16 March 1979 and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 100 hours time in service until modified in accordance with Alert SB No. ANMD-55-6. This directive was issued due to an instance where the rudder tab mass balance hinge pin seized in its bush and sheared the split pin retaining the hinge pin. For the SAAB SF340 Series Aeroplanes (AD/SF340/6 Amdt 1), the Airworthiness Directive applies to SF 340A with S/Nos. 004 to 138 not incorporating Modification No 1462 and 1784. Compliance is required prior to further flight after 5 May 1986. The directive requires action in accordance with S.B. SF 340-27-036. This directive was issued because it was found that an insufficient margin of flow separation exists on the right hand stabilizer during certain icing conditions, and that the flight manual restriction was insufficient in helping pilots determine if an ice degraded condition existed. Amendment 1 provides for the restoration of full flap travel in modified aircraft and extends aircraft effectivity.

Named Entities: 1. GAF N22 and N24 Series Aeroplanes 2. SAAB SF340 Series Aeroplanes 3. Airworthiness Directives (AD) 4. AD/GAF-N22/26 5. AD/SF340/6 Amdt 1 Metadata: - Compliance and applicability requirements for Airworthiness Directives related to GAF N22 and N24 Series Aeroplanes (AD/GAF-N22/26) and SAAB SF340 Series Aeroplanes (AD/SF340/6 Amdt 1) are being discussed.

Named Entities: 1. GAF N22 2. N24 Series Aeroplanes 3. Airworthiness Directive 4. N22B 5. N24A 6. Mod. N39 7. Alert SB No. ANMD-55-6 8. SAAB SF340 Series Aeroplanes 9. SF 340A 10. S/Nos. 004 to 138 11. Modification No 1462 12. Modification No 1784 13. S.B. SF 340-27-036 Metadata: 1. Compliance required within 50 hours time in service after 16 March 1979. 2. Compliance required at intervals not exceeding 100 hours time in service until modified in accordance with Alert SB No. ANMD-55-6. 3. Compliance required prior to further flight after 5 May 1986. 4. Directive issued due to a rudder tab mass balance hinge pin issue. 5. Directive issued due to flow separation issues on the right-hand stabilizer during certain icing conditions. 6. Amendment 1 provides for the restoration of full flap travel in modified aircraft and extends aircraft effectivity.

What are the key differences between the Tariff Concession Order revocation made by Robert Crawford and the Tariff Concession Order declared by Michael Perry, including the goods they apply to, the effective dates, and the relevant sections of the Customs Act 1901?

Robert Crawford revoked Tariff Concession Order Number 9908800, which was made on 04.02.00 and applied to the goods described in TABLE A. This revocation was made under Section 269SD(2) of the Customs Act 1901 and took effect from 01.01.07. In its place, he made new Tariff Concession Orders described in TABLE B, with the goods specified in Column 1 of TABLE B being subject to the item in Part III of Schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 specified in Column 2 of TABLE B. On the other hand, Michael Perry declared a Tariff Concession Order under Section 269P of the Customs Act 1901. The goods specified in Column 1 of THE TABLE are subject to the item in Part III of Schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 specified in Column 2 of THE TABLE. This order took effect from 28.04.11 and continues in force until revoked under sections 269SC or 269SD of the Act, or the date, if any, specified in Column 2. Therefore, the key differences between the two orders lie in the sections of the Customs Act 1901 under which they were made, the effective dates, the goods they apply to, and the conditions for their revocation.

Named Entities: 1. Robert Crawford 2. Michael Perry 3. Tariff Concession Order 4. Customs Act 1901 Key Differences: 1. **Robert Crawford's Tariff Concession Order Revocation:** - Goods: Specific goods for which the tariff concession was revoked. - Effective Date: Date on which the revocation came into effect. - Relevant Section of the Customs Act 1901: Section related to the revocation process. 2. **Michael Perry's Tariff Concession Order Declaration:** - Goods: Specific goods to which the tariff concession applies. - Effective Date: Date on which the tariff concession order was declared. - Relevant Section of the Customs Act 1901: Section related to the declaration process.

Named Entities: 1. Robert Crawford 2. Tariff Concession Order Number 9908800 3. Section 269SD(2) of the Customs Act 1901 4. TABLE A 5. Section 269P of the Customs Act 1901 6. Michael Perry 7. Part III of Schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 8. TABLE B Metadata: 1. Date: 04.02.00 2. Effective Date: 01.01.07 3. Date: 28.04.11 4. Acts: - Customs Act 1901 - Customs Tariff Act 1995

In two separate bankruptcy cases held in the Federal Court of Australia, what were the decisions made by the judges regarding the debtors, and what were the subsequent actions or orders given in each case?

In the first case held in the Queensland District Registry with case numbers QP 425 of 1995, QP 766 of 1995, and QP 200 of 1996, the presiding judge was satisfied that the debtor, Peter Hutton, had committed the act of bankruptcy alleged in the petition and proved the other matters required by section 52(1) of the Act. Consequently, a sequestration order was made against the debtor's estate. The costs were to be taxed and paid according to the Act, including reserved costs, and a draft of the order was directed to be delivered to the Registrar within seven days in accordance with Rule 124(2). Ivor Worrell, a registered trustee, had filed a consent to act as trustee on 26 October 1995 and would ordinarily become the trustee automatically by the operation of section 156A(3). The subsequent case held in the New South Wales District Registry with case number NB 1321 of 1995, the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy sought the immediate hearing of an application, which was not opposed and thus granted by the judge. The hearing was then conducted, and the application sought a series of directions under section 81(6)(c) of the Bankruptcy Act, or alternatively, injunctions against the bankrupt and his father concerning the proposed public examination of the bankrupt himself and the further examination of the father of the bankrupt. However, the judge deemed that the injunctions sought were not appropriate and did not find it necessary to make any finding on whether the submission for the bankrupt that the injunctions sought were beyond the power of the Court was correct.

I'm sorry, but I cannot provide specific information about the decisions made by judges in two separate bankruptcy cases held in the Federal Court of Australia without knowing the specific cases you are referring to. If you can provide the names of the debtors or any other relevant details, I can try to help you find the information you are looking for.

Named Entities: 1. Queensland District Registry 2. Peter Hutton 3. Ivor Worrell 4. New South Wales District Registry 5. Official Trustee in Bankruptcy Metadata: 1. Case numbers: QP 425 of 1995, QP 766 of 1995, QP 200 of 1996, NB 1321 of 1995 2. Dates: 26 October 1995 3. Legal terminologies: sequestration order, trustee, bankruptcy, injunctions, public examination, Court

Which delegate declared that certain goods are subject to the item in Part III of Schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act 1995, and what are the effective dates of their respective declarations?

Wendy Knowles, a delegate of the Chief Executive Officer, declared that the goods specified in Column 1 of THE TABLE are goods to which the item in Part III of Schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 specified in Column 2 of THE TABLE applies. Her declaration had effect from 01.07.10 and continues in force until revoked or a specified date in Column 2. David Mulcair, also a delegate of the Chief Executive Officer, made a similar declaration for certain goods. His declaration had effect from 03.11.11 and also continues in force until revoked or a specified date in Column 2. The exact goods and any specified dates for both declarations would require direct reference to THE TABLE.

Named Entity: - Delegate Metadata: - Legislation: Customs Tariff Act 1995 - Schedule: Part III of Schedule 4 - Effective dates of declarations

Named Entities: 1. Wendy Knowles 2. Chief Executive Officer 3. David Mulcair Metadata: 1. Date: 01.07.10 2. Date: 03.11.11 3. Act: Customs Tariff Act 1995 4. Schedule: Schedule 4 5. Column 1 6. Column 2 7. THE TABLE

In the case of Russell Hill v Ridgee Didge Limited and the matter of Craig Maguire and Plasdene Glass-Pak Pty Limited, both heard by the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales, what were the outcomes and what specific procedures or rules were followed in each case?

In the case of Russell Hill v Ridgee Didge Limited, the application was for relief from unfair dismissal. The grounds for dismissal included poor work performance, lack of punctuality, unsafe work practices, failure to respond to instruction, and failure to heed warnings. The decision, given on 02/08/2006, held that the termination of employment was not harsh, unreasonable, or unjust, and therefore the application was refused. This case was heard in accordance with the Industrial Relations Act of 1996. In the matter of Craig Maguire and Plasdene Glass-Pak Pty Limited, the application was for unfair dismissal pursuant to section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996. The decision in this case, dealt with an adjournment application that was referred to a Presidential member on 28 March, 2006. The application was made in accordance with Par 13 of Practice Direction 17, which states that any applications for adjournment of arbitration dates must be made in a timely way, be in writing, and contain full grounds. Such applications are considered and determined by a Presidential Member and are granted only on clear and compelling grounds.

Named Entities: 1. Case: Russell Hill v Ridgee Didge Limited 2. Case: Craig Maguire and Plasdene Glass-Pak Pty Limited 3. Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales Metadata: 1. Location: New South Wales 2. Legal context: Industrial Relations Commission 3. Parties involved: Russell Hill, Ridgee Didge Limited, Craig Maguire, Plasdene Glass-Pak Pty Limited

Named Entities: 1. Russell Hill 2. Ridgee Didge Limited 3. Craig Maguire 4. Plasdene Glass-Pak Pty Limited Metadata: 1. Date: 02/08/2006 2. Legislation: Industrial Relations Act of 1996 3. Section: Section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 4. Practice Direction: Practice Direction 17

In the context of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales, what was the outcome of the application made by Orkun James Sen on 2nd March 2006, and how does it differ from the application made by the Transport Workers Union of New South Wales on an unspecified date in 2007?

Orkun James Sen made an application to the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales on 2nd March 2006, pursuant to section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996, regarding an unfair dismissal matter. This matter was referred by the Industrial Registrar to the Commission in accordance with Practice Direction 17. The Transport Workers Union of New South Wales made an application on an unspecified date in 2007 for the variation of an award, specifically the Transport Industry - Wholesale Butchers (State) Award. This application was made under section 17 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 and sought increases to wages and allowances. The application was granted, resulting in the award being varied. This outcome is different from Mr. Sen's application, which was related to an unfair dismissal claim rather than a request for award variation.

Named Entities: 1. Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales 2. Orkun James Sen 3. Transport Workers Union of New South Wales Metadata: 1. Date: 2nd March 2006 2. Date: Unspecified in 2007

Named Entities: 1. Orkun James Sen 2. Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales 3. Industrial Relations Act 1996 4. Industrial Registrar 5. Transport Workers Union of New South Wales 6. Transport Industry - Wholesale Butchers (State) Award Metadata: 1. Date: 2nd March 2006 2. Section: 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 3. Practice Direction: 17 4. Year: 2007 5. Section: 17 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996

If Sargents, the corporate trustee of a charitable trust, were to be considered a society or institution, would it be eligible for exemption under the Duties Act 1997, sections 275(a) or 275(b)? And if Sargents were to appeal a decision regarding this matter, what potential challenges might it face?

If Sargents were to be considered a society or institution, its eligibility for exemption under the Duties Act 1997, sections 275(a) or 275(b), would depend on certain conditions. For exemption under section 275(a), there must be evidence that the Foundation’s resources are used wholly or predominantly for the relief of poverty in Australia. If this condition is not met, Sargents would not be entitled to exemption under this section. As for section 275(b), even though the Foundation is of a charitable or benevolent nature, the exemption is not available unless the dutiable transactions were for such purposes as the Chief Commissioner might approve in accordance with guidelines approved by the Treasurer. If Sargents were to appeal a decision regarding this matter, it might face certain challenges. If leave is granted to appeal on the merits and a decision is made by the Appeal Panel based on new evidence, Sargents would not have any further internal appeal available. Its only remedy would be an appeal to the Supreme Court, which comes with its own costs and complexity. Furthermore, the Appeal Panel might refuse leave to appeal, both in terms of leaving to appeal out of time and for leaving to extend the appeal to the merits. This decision could be based on the severity of the prejudice faced by the respondent, which might outweigh the public interest in determining the points raised under sections 147 and 150 of the Duties Act 1997.

Named Entities: 1. Sargents Metadata: 1. Law - Duties Act 1997 2. Sections 275(a) and 275(b) of the Duties Act 1997 3. Corporate trustee 4. Charitable trust 5. Society or institution 6. Exemption 7. Appeal process 8. Legal challenges

Named Entities: 1. Sargents 2. Duties Act 1997 3. Foundation 4. Chief Commissioner 5. Treasurer 6. Appeal Panel 7. Supreme Court Metadata: - The text discusses the eligibility of Sargents for exemption under sections 275(a) and 275(b) of the Duties Act 1997. - It mentions conditions that need to be met for exemption under each section. - It outlines the challenges Sargents might face if appealing a decision, including the possibility of no further internal appeal and the option of appealing to the Supreme Court. - The text refers to the Appeal Panel's role in making decisions based on new evidence and the criteria for granting leave to appeal. - It highlights the considerations involved in determining points raised under sections 147 and 150 of the Duties Act 1997.

In the context of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales, how did the outcomes of the unfair dismissal applications differ in the cases of Orkun James Sen v Doors Plus Pty Limited and Peter Blum v Global Vision International Pty Ltd?

In the case of Orkun James Sen v Doors Plus Pty Limited there is no clear outcome of the unfair dismissal application. The matter was referred to the Commission by the Industrial Registrar pursuant to Practice Direction 17 and that the applicant, Mr. Sen, had sent a letter to the Industrial Registrar on 2nd March 2006. On the other hand, in the case of Peter Blum v Global Vision International Pty Ltd, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was refused. The termination was not considered harsh, reasonable, or unjust. This conclusion was reached following a hearing on 10th October 2001, and the judgment was delivered on 16th November 2001. Therefore, the outcomes of the two cases were different, with the latter resulting in a clear refusal of the application for relief from unfair dismissal.

Named Entities: 1. Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales 2. Orkun James Sen 3. Doors Plus Pty Limited 4. Peter Blum 5. Global Vision International Pty Ltd Metadata: 1. Topic: Unfair dismissal applications in the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales 2. Cases: Orkun James Sen v Doors Plus Pty Limited and Peter Blum v Global Vision International Pty Ltd

Named Entities: 1. Orkun James Sen 2. Doors Plus Pty Limited 3. Industrial Registrar 4. Practice Direction 17 5. Peter Blum 6. Global Vision International Pty Ltd Metadata: 1. Case 1: Orkun James Sen v Doors Plus Pty Limited - No clear outcome of the unfair dismissal application - Referred to the Commission by the Industrial Registrar - Mr. Sen sent a letter to the Industrial Registrar on 2nd March 2006 2. Case 2: Peter Blum v Global Vision International Pty Ltd - Application for relief from unfair dismissal was refused - Termination was not considered harsh, reasonable, or unjust - Hearing on 10th October 2001 - Judgment delivered on 16th November 2001

What are the key differences in the decisions made for Development Application DA201700142 at 59 Trafalgar Street, Stanmore and Development Application No. 2017/0501 at 47 Turf Street, Grafton in terms of the project details, costs, and payment timelines?

The Development Application DA201700142 at 59 Trafalgar Street, Stanmore was approved for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a part two, part three storey boarding house comprising twelve boarding rooms, including one room for a caretaker. This project also includes associated landscaping works and parking for two cars, two motorcycles, and two bicycles. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of $8,000.00 within 14 days pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. On the other hand, Development Application No. 2017/0501 at 47 Turf Street, Grafton was approved for renovations to an existing heritage listed building and the construction of five additional two bedroom dwellings. This project also includes ancillary landscaping, driveways, and engineering works on the land and the adjacent laneway. In this case, the applicant was ordered to pay a different cost of $10,000.00 within a longer timeframe of 21 days, also pursuant to section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The costs in this case were specifically thrown away as a result of the amendments made. In summary, the projects differ in their scope, with the Stanmore project focusing on a boarding house and the Grafton project on a heritage building and additional dwellings. The costs and payment timelines also differ, with the Grafton project requiring a higher payment and a longer payment period.

Named Entities: 1. Development Application DA201700142 2. 59 Trafalgar Street, Stanmore 3. Development Application No. 2017/0501 4. 47 Turf Street, Grafton Metadata: 1. Project details 2. Costs 3. Payment timelines

Named Entities: 1. Development Application DA201700142 2. 59 Trafalgar Street, Stanmore 3. 47 Turf Street, Grafton 4. Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Metadata: 1. Development Application DA201700142: - Location: 59 Trafalgar Street, Stanmore - Description: Approved for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a part two, part three storey boarding house comprising twelve boarding rooms, including one room for a caretaker. Associated landscaping works and parking for two cars, two motorcycles, and two bicycles. - Cost: $8,000.00 - Payment Timeline: Within 14 days - Legal Reference: Section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 2. Development Application No. 2017/0501: - Location: 47 Turf Street, Grafton - Description: Approved for renovations to an existing heritage listed building and the construction of five additional two bedroom dwellings. Ancillary landscaping, driveways, and engineering works on the land and the adjacent laneway. - Cost: $10,000.00 - Payment Timeline: Within 21 days - Legal Reference: Section 8.15(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

In relation to the orders of the Court, what are the key decisions made in the two separate cases, specifically in terms of the outcome of the appeals, the payments required, and the approvals granted for development applications or modifications?

In the first case, the applicant is required to pay the respondent's costs of $1,500 within 28 days, as per the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The appeal in this case was upheld. Development Application No. 2018/233/1 for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a centre-based child care facility for 44 children at Lot 121 in Deposited Plan 15158, otherwise known as 7 Whitworth Street, Westmead, was approved. This approval is subject to the conditions included in Annexure “A”. In the second case, the applicant was granted leave to amend Modification Application No. 591/2017/4 to rely on amended plans and documentation listed at condition 1 of the consolidated conditions of consent, at Annexure A. The appeal in this case was also upheld. Modification Application No. DA/591/2017/A to modify Development Consent DA/55/2015 for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a three-storey dwelling with rooftop terrace, inground swimming pool and retaining walls was approved. This approval is subject to the consolidated conditions of consent at Annexure A. Additionally, in a separate proceeding, the development control order issued by the respondent to the applicant on 19 November 2018, was modified in accordance with the terms of the development control order at Annexure A. The works required under the modified development control order must be completed by the time specified in the order or such other period as may be agreed in writing by the respondent’s Group Manager Regulatory Services. The Court also grants liberty to the applicant to apply to extend the time referred to in Order (3) if she is not reasonably able to complete those works within the specified time despite employing her best endeavours.

Named Entities: - Court - two separate cases - appeals - payments - approvals - development applications - modifications Metadata: - Topic: Legal proceedings and court orders - Request: Seeking information on key decisions made in two separate court cases regarding appeals, payments, and development applications or modifications.

Named Entities: 1. Legislation: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 2. Development Application: No. 2018/233/1 3. Location: Lot 121 in Deposited Plan 15158, 7 Whitworth Street, Westmead 4. Modification Application: No. 591/2017/4, DA/591/2017/A 5. Document: Annexure A 6. Respondent: Group Manager Regulatory Services Metadata: 1. Date: 19 November 2018 2. Requirement: Payment of $1,500 within 28 days 3. Decision: Appeal upheld in both cases 4. Approval: Granted for the development applications mentioned 5. Conditions: Specified in Annexure A 6. Order: Development control order modified 7. Timeframe: Works completion time specified in the order or as agreed in writing 8. Liberty: Applicant granted liberty to apply for an extension if unable to complete works within the specified time.

What modifications were sought in the application D/2010/2063/E and what were the original consents granted for the property at 12 Ross Street, Forest Lodge according to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979?

The modification application D/2010/2063/E sought consent for an internal reconfiguration to accommodate a total of 6 bedrooms, 1 lounge, 3 bathrooms, 1 laundry and 1 storage room. The proposal also included external alterations such as the infill of the breezeway to the eastern boundary with associated roofing and the installation of an operable window to a room (proposed Bedroom 5) on the first floor. The original consent (D/2010/2063) involved alterations and additions to the existing dwelling, including a new rear extension on the lower ground, ground, and first floors. On the lower ground floor, the original consent included the demolition of the existing rear extension, a new rear extension to the north-western side boundary containing a guest room, laundry, and bathroom, and a new courtyard along the north eastern boundary. On the ground floor, it included the demolition of the rear extension, a new rear extension to the north-western side boundary containing a bathroom, kitchen, and dining room, and a new rear balcony adjoining the dining room. On the first floor, it included an internal reconfiguration, a new rear extension to the north-western side boundary containing a bathroom, formal living room, and rear balcony, and a new rear balcony adjoining the formal living area.

Named Entity Recognition Results: - Application number: D/2010/2063/E - Property address: 12 Ross Street, Forest Lodge - Legislation: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Metadata: - Action: Modifications sought in the application - Property: 12 Ross Street, Forest Lodge - Legislation: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Named Entities: 1. Application: D/2010/2063/E 2. Bedrooms: 6 3. Lounge: 1 4. Bathrooms: 3 5. Laundry: 1 6. Storage room: 1 7. Breezeway 8. Bedroom 5 9. Lower ground floor 10. Ground floor 11. First floor 12. Guest room 13. Kitchen 14. Dining room 15. Courtyard 16. Rear extension 17. Balcony 18. Formal living room 19. Consent: D/2010/2063 Metadata: - The application sought consent for internal reconfiguration and external alterations to accommodate additional rooms and facilities. - The original consent (D/2010/2063) involved alterations and additions to the existing dwelling across different floors. - The modifications included demolition of existing structures and the construction of new extensions and rooms. - The proposal involved changes to the layout and structure of the building to create additional living spaces and amenities.

In the Federal Court of Australia, which case had a motion filed on 17 July 2006 and was dismissed by Rares J, while the other case was dismissed by Madgwick J with an order for the applicant to pay the first respondent's costs assessed in the sum of $2,800?

The case with a motion filed on 17 July 2006 and subsequently dismissed by Rares J is SZDMO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1304. The other case, dismissed by Madgwick J with an order for the applicant to pay the first respondent's costs assessed in the sum of $2,800, is SZJHX v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 1337.

Named Entities: 1. Federal Court of Australia 2. Rares J 3. Madgwick J Metadata: 1. Date: 17 July 2006 2. Order: Applicant to pay the first respondent's costs assessed in the sum of $2,800.

Named Entities: 1. Case: SZDMO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs 2. Judge: Rares J 3. Case: SZJHX v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship 4. Judge: Madgwick J Metadata: 1. Date of motion filing: 17 July 2006 2. Outcome of the first case: Dismissed by Rares J 3. Citation for the first case: [2006] FCA 1304 4. Outcome of the second case: Dismissed by Madgwick J with an order for the applicant to pay the first respondent's costs assessed at $2,800 5. Citation for the second case: [2007] FCA 1337

In two separate cases held in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, who represented the applicants and the respondents in each case, and what were the respective pieces of legislation under which these cases were heard?

In the case of Kristeller v Matis [2012] NSWLEC 1027, the applicant, Mrs. H Kristeller, was represented by Mr. G Christmas (Solicitor), and the respondent, Mrs. A Matis, was represented by Mr. G Matis (Agent). This case was heard under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006. In the second case, The Owners – Strata Plan 16538 v Chandos Nursing Home, the applicants were represented by Mr. Eddy Ottaviano of Conti Property Group, Concord, and the respondent was represented by Mr. Ivan Rockey, the proprietor of Chandos Nursing Home. This case was also heard under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006.

The given text does not contain specific information about the two separate cases held in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. Therefore, I am unable to extract named entities and metadata related to the representation of applicants and respondents, as well as the respective pieces of legislation under which the cases were heard. If you provide more details or context about the cases, I can assist in extracting the requested information.

Named Entities: 1. Case: Kristeller v Matis [2012] NSWLEC 1027 2. Applicant: Mrs. H Kristeller 3. Applicant's Representative: Mr. G Christmas (Solicitor) 4. Respondent: Mrs. A Matis 5. Respondent's Representative: Mr. G Matis (Agent) 6. Act: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 7. Second Case: The Owners – Strata Plan 16538 v Chandos Nursing Home 8. Applicant's Representative: Mr. Eddy Ottaviano of Conti Property Group, Concord 9. Respondent: Mr. Ivan Rockey, proprietor of Chandos Nursing Home Metadata: 1. Year: 2012 2. Location: NSW (New South Wales) 3. Legal Entity: NSWLEC (New South Wales Land and Environment Court) 4. Act: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006

In the case under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, what were the main concerns of the applicants and the responses of the respondents regarding the tree in dispute?

The applicants, the McLellans and the Randells, had primary concerns that branches from the tree, a mature Quercus robur (English Oak), could potentially cause damage to their properties. Specifically, they worried about the impact on the McLellans' garage roof and the Randells' dwelling roof, as well as electricity/communications cables. Additionally, they raised issues about debris falling from the tree, particularly a 'black excretion' known as Sooty Mould, which they claimed stains pavers and other elements of their properties. The first respondent did not object to the removal of dead wood but expressed concern about the removal of too much foliage, as the tree serves as a habitat for Tawny Frogmouths. The second respondent had no objection to the removal of other branches. The first respondent also indicated where several large branches had been removed without her consent. The case was handled under Section 7 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, which enables an owner or occupier of land to apply to the Court for an order to remedy, restrain or prevent damage to property on the applicant's land, as a consequence of a tree situated on adjoining land.

Named Entities: - Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 Metadata: - Date: 2006 - Topic: Disputes between neighbors regarding trees

Named Entities: 1. Applicants: the McLellans and the Randells 2. Tree: Quercus robur (English Oak) 3. Concerns: damage to properties, garage roof, dwelling roof, electricity/communications cables, debris falling, Sooty Mould 4. Wildlife: Tawny Frogmouths Metadata: 1. Act: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 2. Section: Section 7 of the Act

Comparing the 'Bailey v Gould [2011] NSWLEC 1062' decision with the dispute between Ms. Couto and Mr. Kiernicki, how were the criteria or tests under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 assessed differently by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales in relation to the determination of tree-related damage or risk?

When considering the application of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales' handling of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, particularly in the context of tree-related damage or risk, insights can be gained from reviewing specific cases. In 'Bailey v Gould [2011] NSWLEC 1062,' for example, the dismissal of the application reveals the stringent standards the court applies to prove damage or risk associated with trees, such as unusual 'borer' holes or specific staining believed to be from the trees. This decision suggests the court requires clear, unequivocal evidence to deem any damage or risk significant under the Act, emphasizing the need for substantial proof of harm or potential harm emanating from the trees.

Named Entities: 1. Bailey v Gould [2011] NSWLEC 1062 2. Ms. Couto 3. Mr. Kiernicki 4. Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 5. Land and Environment Court of New South Wales Metadata: - The text discusses a comparison between the decision in Bailey v Gould [2011] NSWLEC 1062 and a dispute between Ms. Couto and Mr. Kiernicki. - It focuses on how the criteria or tests under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 were assessed differently by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales in relation to the determination of tree-related damage or risk.

Named Entities: 1. Land and Environment Court of New South Wales 2. Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 3. Bailey v Gould [2011] NSWLEC 1062 Metadata: 1. Location: New South Wales 2. Year: 2006 3. Legal Case: Bailey v Gould [2011] NSWLEC 1062 4. Act: Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006