Datasets:

Ramitha

/

open-australian-legal-qa-results-k0-k1-k3-hybrid-gpt

like 0

"In the case Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, the court found in fav(...TRUNCATED)

"\"13. It can therefore be said in this case that although the usual rule is that costs follow the e(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, the court decided that(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of Garawin Pty Ltd v 1A Eden Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2022] NSWSC 1417, what was (...TRUNCATED)

"In the case of Garawin Pty Ltd v 1A Eden Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2022] NSWSC 1417, the court found the def(...TRUNCATED)

"\"light of authorities commencing at least from L’Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394, signature o(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, the court's decision w(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the general approach to the construction and application of clauses in a docu(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, the court's decision w(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 19 However, it is not just the statement of principle in Batistatos or, more accurately Agar v H(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, the court's decision w(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of Neeson v Amora Company Limited and ors (No 2) [2007] NSWIRComm 139, wh(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, the court held that th(...TRUNCATED)

"\"13. It can therefore be said in this case that although the usual rule is that costs follow the e(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, the court decided that(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of Garawin Pty Ltd v 1A Eden Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2022] NSWSC 1417, what was (...TRUNCATED)

"\"In the case Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, the court's decision(...TRUNCATED)

"\"light of authorities commencing at least from L’Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394, signature o(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, the court's decision w(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the general approach to the construction and application of clauses in a docu(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, the court's decision w(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 19 However, it is not just the statement of principle in Batistatos or, more accurately Agar v H(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, the court's decision w(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of Neeson v Amora Company Limited and ors (No 2) [2007] NSWIRComm 139, wh(...TRUNCATED)

"\"In the case Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, the court's decision(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, what was the court's d(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, the Federal Court of A(...TRUNCATED)

[114 169]

"[0.10423540323972702, -0.1665179282426834, -0.020965082570910454, -0.37376993894577026, 0.118275932(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.0027042031288146973, -0.12522736191749573, -0.02998102456331253, 0.08934976905584335, 0.32139930(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.3710246682167053, -0.30695846676826477, -0.005168996751308441, -0.2277795672416687, 0.313638746(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.09509215503931046, -0.2021857500076294, -0.012576316483318806, -0.3855173587799072, 0.1621128618(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.0023545799776911736, -0.10421659797430038, -0.06650102138519287, 0.12985651195049286, 0.3136637(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.4049617350101471, -0.05314958840608597, -0.0845765769481659, -0.22263285517692566, 0.3397574424(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.22807049751281738, -0.09595131129026413, 0.13064219057559967, -0.3293249011039734, 0.2784504592(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.11683186143636703, -0.03316358104348183, 0.01739118993282318, -0.041743893176317215, 0.29089289(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.4248591661453247, -0.04108070954680443, -0.06330486387014389, 0.03118901699781418, 0.0112088751(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.22192685306072235, -0.09357594698667526, 0.12152993679046631, -0.3212374746799469, 0.2660439908(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.09864497184753418, -0.024802930653095245, -0.0119248041883111, -0.01719886064529419, 0.26680448(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.4455259144306183, 0.04232563078403473, -0.036632880568504333, 0.014901772141456604, 0.052200533(...TRUNCATED)

"Without knowing the specific details of Events 38832023 and 3860136, it is difficult to determine w(...TRUNCATED)

"\" * In Event 38832023 - the date of birth and the address of the person referred to and observatio(...TRUNCATED)

"Considering the balance of public interest and the potential impact on individuals, the specific de(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What type of information was redacted in the case of Robinson v Commissioner of Polic(...TRUNCATED)

"Considering the balance of public interest and the potential impact on individuals, should the spec(...TRUNCATED)

"\"45The risk must also be linked \"to the safety of children\": section 28 (7) of the Act; Commiss(...TRUNCATED)

"Considering the balance of public interest and the potential impact on individuals, the specific de(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What factors should be considered in assessing the risk to the safety of children acc(...TRUNCATED)

"Considering the balance of public interest and the potential impact on individuals, should the spec(...TRUNCATED)

"\" * In Event 38832023 - the date of birth and the address of the person referred to and observatio(...TRUNCATED)

"Considering the balance of public interest and the potential impact on individuals, the specific de(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What type of information was redacted in the case of Robinson v Commissioner of Polic(...TRUNCATED)

"Considering the balance of public interest and the potential impact on individuals, should the spec(...TRUNCATED)

"\" * In Event 38832023 - the date of birth and the address of the person referred to and observatio(...TRUNCATED)

"Considering the balance of public interest and the potential impact on individuals, the specific de(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What type of information was redacted in the case of Robinson v Commissioner of Polic(...TRUNCATED)

"Considering the balance of public interest and the potential impact on individuals, should the spec(...TRUNCATED)

"\"45The risk must also be linked \"to the safety of children\": section 28 (7) of the Act; Commiss(...TRUNCATED)

"Considering the balance of public interest and the potential impact on individuals, the specific de(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What factors should be considered in assessing the risk to the safety of children acc(...TRUNCATED)

"Considering the balance of public interest and the potential impact on individuals, should the spec(...TRUNCATED)

"\" * In Event 38832023 - the date of birth and the address of the person referred to and observatio(...TRUNCATED)

"Considering the balance of public interest and the potential impact on individuals, the specific de(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What type of information was redacted in the case of Robinson v Commissioner of Polic(...TRUNCATED)

"Considering the balance of public interest and the potential impact on individuals, should the spec(...TRUNCATED)

"Considering the balance of public interest and the potential impact on individuals, should the spec(...TRUNCATED)

"The details in Events 38832023 and 3860136 include personal information such as date of birth, addr(...TRUNCATED)

[270 347]

"[-0.019197409972548485, -0.0016128727002069354, -0.08965843915939331, -0.03764228895306587, 0.18763(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.12920181453227997, 0.08838242292404175, 0.0015340140089392662, 0.04636218398809433, 0.086500808(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.624129056930542, -0.3914183974266052, -0.041526924818754196, 0.2815299928188324, 0.0185177382081(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.02651604823768139, -0.013784815557301044, -0.11317981779575348, -0.028985098004341125, 0.2284406(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.05422603711485863, 0.1209280863404274, -0.11976781487464905, 0.10875299572944641, 0.17931601405(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.36398348212242126, -0.16158992052078247, -0.04480678588151932, 0.16041947901248932, 0.0885652899(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.24886399507522583, 0.24751828610897064, -0.022702783346176147, -0.19518175721168518, 0.22112272(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.04563914239406586, 0.19787001609802246, -0.148735910654068, -0.08133304864168167, 0.285340577363(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.5655755996704102, -0.0976831465959549, -0.15493616461753845, 0.18180593848228455, -0.05278081446(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.2162674218416214, 0.2396380603313446, -0.02924961969256401, -0.20957370102405548, 0.21602770686(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.05516544729471207, 0.20160458981990814, -0.16356562077999115, -0.05948207154870033, 0.2788093090(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.5197416543960571, -0.056952767074108124, -0.15389113128185272, 0.17156334221363068, -0.060109958(...TRUNCATED)

"Case 1: Slattery J\n\nIn the case heard by Slattery J, the decision was made in favor of the plaint(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 19 However, it is not just the statement of principle in Batistatos or, more accurately Agar v H(...TRUNCATED)

"In two separate cases heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales under the jurisdiction of Equit(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of Neeson v Amora Company Limited and ors (No 2) [2007] NSWIRComm 139, wh(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case of Neeson v Amora Company Limited and ors (No 2) [2007] NSWIRComm 139, the respondents (...TRUNCATED)

"\" However, the words cannot be taken in isolation. They must, in accordance with the ordinary cano(...TRUNCATED)

"In two separate cases heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, both falling under the jurisdi(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the test to determine if a bankrupt person can prosecute an action for person(...TRUNCATED)

"In two separate cases heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, both falling under the jurisdi(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 19 However, it is not just the statement of principle in Batistatos or, more accurately Agar v H(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case heard by Slattery J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the decision was based on (...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of Neeson v Amora Company Limited and ors (No 2) [2007] NSWIRComm 139, wh(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case of Neeson v Amora Company Limited and ors (No 2) [2007] NSWIRComm 139, the respondents (...TRUNCATED)

"\" 19 However, it is not just the statement of principle in Batistatos or, more accurately Agar v H(...TRUNCATED)

"In two separate cases heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales falling under the jurisdiction (...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of Neeson v Amora Company Limited and ors (No 2) [2007] NSWIRComm 139, wh(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case of Neeson v Amora Company Limited and ors (No 2) [2007] NSWIRComm 139, the respondents (...TRUNCATED)

"\" However, the words cannot be taken in isolation. They must, in accordance with the ordinary cano(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case of Klewer v The District Court of New South Wales, heard in the Supreme Court of New So(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the test to determine if a bankrupt person can prosecute an action for person(...TRUNCATED)

"In two separate cases heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, both falling under the jurisdi(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 19 However, it is not just the statement of principle in Batistatos or, more accurately Agar v H(...TRUNCATED)

"In two separate cases heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales falling under the jurisdiction (...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of Neeson v Amora Company Limited and ors (No 2) [2007] NSWIRComm 139, wh(...TRUNCATED)

"In two separate cases heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, both falling under the jurisdi(...TRUNCATED)

"In two separate cases heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, both falling under the jurisdi(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case of Mekhail v Hana; Mekail v Hana; In the Estate of Nadia Mekhail [2017] NSWSC 575, hear(...TRUNCATED)

[ 388 1662]

"[0.02596280165016651, -0.07136604189872742, -0.33406755328178406, -0.29737111926078796, 0.093836992(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.032598309218883514, 0.283461332321167, 0.020872849971055984, 0.0014246561331674457, 0.201380282(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.322487473487854, -0.10779520124197006, -0.8490001559257507, -0.2369457334280014, -0.09315805882(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.06910744309425354, -0.13112026453018188, -0.308646023273468, -0.2943187654018402, 0.146641716361(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.0018813080387189984, 0.2632799446582794, 0.00932583399116993, 0.07429778575897217, 0.2243857979(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.3880188763141632, 0.0675685852766037, -0.7551966905593872, -0.23051947355270386, 0.031285803765(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.29932308197021484, -0.08719420433044434, 0.24198895692825317, -0.44312727451324463, 0.126006349(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.1529170125722885, 0.12348916381597519, 0.14601483941078186, -0.06481478363275528, 0.17094987630(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.3596920967102051, -0.22549670934677124, -0.27222126722335815, -0.22919894754886627, -0.31473565(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.29801926016807556, -0.09234002232551575, 0.21727637946605682, -0.4552256166934967, 0.1130456030(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.14582818746566772, 0.14794474840164185, 0.12425579875707626, -0.06683313846588135, 0.1664751470(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.379778653383255, -0.15069353580474854, -0.2647361755371094, -0.21614646911621094, -0.3266329169(...TRUNCATED)

"Under rule 8.21(1)(d) of the Federal Court Rules, an amendment can be made to correct a mistake in (...TRUNCATED)

"\"116 In short, as Balkin and Davis explain in Law of Torts (LexisNexis Butterworths, 5th ed, 2013)(...TRUNCATED)

"In the context of the Federal Court Rules, an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) allows for the substi(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the fundamental issue when determining if an Act intended to give a right of (...TRUNCATED)

"Rule 8.21(1)(d) of the Federal Court Rules allows for the amendment of a party's name or descriptio(...TRUNCATED)

"\"37 Consistent with this reasoning, Gordon J found that an amendment under r 8.21(1)(d) takes effe(...TRUNCATED)

"In the context of the Federal Court Rules, an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) affects the commencem(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the context of the Federal Court Rules, what is the effect of an amendment under r(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case of Robinson, in the matter of Reed Constructions Australia Pty Limited (in liq) v JFK I(...TRUNCATED)

"\"37 Consistent with this reasoning, Gordon J found that an amendment under r 8.21(1)(d) takes effe(...TRUNCATED)

"In the context of the Federal Court Rules, an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) affects the commencem(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the context of the Federal Court Rules, what is the effect of an amendment under r(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case of Robinson, in the matter of Reed Constructions Australia Pty Limited (in liq) v JFK I(...TRUNCATED)

"\"116 In short, as Balkin and Davis explain in Law of Torts (LexisNexis Butterworths, 5th ed, 2013)(...TRUNCATED)

"In the context of the Federal Court Rules, an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) affects the commencem(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the fundamental issue when determining if an Act intended to give a right of (...TRUNCATED)

"\"In the context of the Federal Court Rules, how does an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) affect the(...TRUNCATED)

"\"37 Consistent with this reasoning, Gordon J found that an amendment under r 8.21(1)(d) takes effe(...TRUNCATED)

"In the context of the Federal Court Rules, an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) affects the commencem(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the context of the Federal Court Rules, what is the effect of an amendment under r(...TRUNCATED)

"\"In the context of the Federal Court Rules, how does an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) affect the(...TRUNCATED)

"\"37 Consistent with this reasoning, Gordon J found that an amendment under r 8.21(1)(d) takes effe(...TRUNCATED)

"In the context of the Federal Court Rules, an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) affects the commencem(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the context of the Federal Court Rules, what is the effect of an amendment under r(...TRUNCATED)

"\"In the case of Robinson, in the matter of Reed Constructions Australia Pty Limited (in liq) v JFK(...TRUNCATED)

"In the context of the Federal Court Rules, how does an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) affect the c(...TRUNCATED)

"According to the judgment of Gordon J, an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) takes effect from the com(...TRUNCATED)

[1881 1881]

"[0.05399247631430626, 0.03763565793633461, -0.2733985185623169, -0.44990721344947815, 0.22174131870(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.0940106064081192, 0.031954631209373474, 0.027443693950772285, -0.07531920820474625, 0.384985208(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.08438273519277573, -0.07412683963775635, -0.4097619354724884, -0.1071482002735138, 0.1818400919(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.0569213330745697, -0.042861513793468475, -0.23046153783798218, -0.4516366422176361, 0.2269364744(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.09847217798233032, 0.03212566673755646, -0.023868434131145477, -0.025886263698339462, 0.3693267(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.20830093324184418, 0.040662266314029694, -0.32011038064956665, -0.06774544715881348, 0.21631626(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.2801944613456726, 0.016026843339204788, -0.0733819305896759, -0.49156785011291504, 0.1234038397(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.213663250207901, 0.0026465130504220724, -0.04962504655122757, -0.1054007038474083, 0.3212061822(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.09185919910669327, 0.03754888102412224, -0.2763802111148834, -0.3119930922985077, -0.09697746485(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.2666357159614563, 0.003912794403731823, -0.06690476089715958, -0.4854884445667267, 0.1340642720(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.22142720222473145, 0.016492782160639763, -0.06365609914064407, -0.07670028507709503, 0.31670489(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.034823209047317505, 0.11204800009727478, -0.2661064863204956, -0.3134504556655884, -0.0688613280(...TRUNCATED)

"I'm sorry, but I cannot provide specific information on Airworthiness Directives for Hiller UH-12 S(...TRUNCATED)

"\" AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE On the effective date specified below, and for the reasons set out in th(...TRUNCATED)

"The specific models of Hiller UH-12 Series Helicopters and Cessna 210 Series Aeroplanes that requir(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What action does the Airworthiness Directive AD/HU 369/121 Amdt 2 require for the McD(...TRUNCATED)

"The Airworthiness Directive AD/HU 369/121 Amdt 2 requires inspections for the McDonnell Douglas (Hu(...TRUNCATED)

"\" COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY(...TRUNCATED)

"As per the Airworthiness Directives issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority of Australia, the(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"Under the Commonwealth Civil Aviation Regulations 1998, what is the compliance requir(...TRUNCATED)

"Under the Commonwealth Civil Aviation Regulations 1998, PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORI(...TRUNCATED)

"\" Applicability: All Model 340, 440, and all such model aircraft converted to turbopropeller power(...TRUNCATED)

"For the Hiller UH-12 Series Helicopters, the specific models that require inspections as per the Ai(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What are the requirements for aircraft models 340, 440, and those converted to turbop(...TRUNCATED)

"The specific models of Hiller UH-12 Series Helicopters and Cessna 210 Series Aeroplanes that requir(...TRUNCATED)

"\" AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE On the effective date specified below, and for the reasons set out in th(...TRUNCATED)

"The specific models of Hiller UH-12 Series Helicopters that require inspections as per the Airworth(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What action does the Airworthiness Directive AD/HU 369/121 Amdt 2 require for the McD(...TRUNCATED)

"The specific models of Hiller UH-12 Series Helicopters and Cessna 210 Series Aeroplanes that requir(...TRUNCATED)

"\" COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY(...TRUNCATED)

"For the Hiller UH-12 Series Helicopters, there are currently no specific Airworthiness Directives l(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"Under the Commonwealth Civil Aviation Regulations 1998, what is the compliance requir(...TRUNCATED)

"The specific models of Hiller UH-12 Series Helicopters and Cessna 210 Series Aeroplanes that requir(...TRUNCATED)

"\" Applicability: All Model 340, 440, and all such model aircraft converted to turbopropeller power(...TRUNCATED)

"The specific models of Hiller UH-12 Series Helicopters that require inspections as per the Airworth(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What are the requirements for aircraft models 340, 440, and those converted to turbop(...TRUNCATED)

"The specific models of Hiller UH-12 Series Helicopters that require inspections as per the Airworth(...TRUNCATED)

"What are the specific models of Hiller UH-12 Series Helicopters and Cessna 210 Series Aeroplanes th(...TRUNCATED)

"For the Hiller UH-12 Series Helicopters, the Airworthiness Directive applies to all model UH-12E he(...TRUNCATED)

[475 762]

"[0.027825091034173965, 0.30563709139823914, 0.24423454701900482, 0.2304157167673111, 0.352166473865(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.19913476705551147, 0.2747645676136017, 0.3070926070213318, 0.05858244746923447, 0.5268700122833(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.2879544496536255, 0.6913779973983765, 0.7328622937202454, 0.3687017560005188, 0.5528792142868042(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.005272657610476017, 0.23753677308559418, 0.17578941583633423, 0.09206227958202362, 0.2912053763(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.2159091681241989, 0.2196102738380432, 0.193403422832489, 0.11666353791952133, 0.477281868457794(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.2321493923664093, 0.7232281565666199, 0.5507239103317261, 0.3032252788543701, 0.5080737471580505(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.29812100529670715, -0.021036799997091293, 0.25251805782318115, -0.021663708612322807, 0.4532484(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.32600629329681396, 0.015873778611421585, 0.09804350882768631, -0.10916800796985626, 0.523734986(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.198891744017601, 0.2392071783542633, 0.5823832750320435, -0.03139135241508484, 0.479900360107421(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.272773414850235, -0.030686380341649055, 0.25080668926239014, -0.027345815673470497, 0.415639847(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.3082350194454193, 0.01060645654797554, 0.06744428724050522, -0.09266400337219238, 0.50258988142(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.16810043156147003, 0.27896928787231445, 0.5694950222969055, 0.02464960142970085, 0.5022595524787(...TRUNCATED)

"Under the old form of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, the sentencing structure(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 22 Referring to the most recent revocation of parole and observing that the respondent had been (...TRUNCATED)

"Under the old form of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, the sentencing structure(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of R v Smith [2003] NSWCCA 381, what factors did the judge consider as ju(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case of R v Smith [2003] NSWCCA 381, the judge identified the age of the respondent, the fac(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 11 Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act was amended to prescribe a different mann(...TRUNCATED)

"Under the old form of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, which applied to offence(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What changes were made to Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act in New (...TRUNCATED)

"How does the sentencing structure differ under the old and new forms of Section 44 of the Crimes (S(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 11 Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act was amended to prescribe a different mann(...TRUNCATED)

"Under the old form of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, which applied to offence(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What changes were made to Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act in New (...TRUNCATED)

"How does the sentencing structure differ under the old and new forms of Section 44 of the Crimes (S(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 22 Referring to the most recent revocation of parole and observing that the respondent had been (...TRUNCATED)

"In the case where the offender, an Aboriginal individual, was arrested on 24th May 2002, the senten(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of R v Smith [2003] NSWCCA 381, what factors did the judge consider as ju(...TRUNCATED)

"In the case of R v Smith [2003] NSWCCA 381, the judge identified the age of the respondent, the fac(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 11 Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act was amended to prescribe a different mann(...TRUNCATED)

"Under the old form of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, which applied to offence(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What changes were made to Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act in New (...TRUNCATED)

"The sentencing structure differed under the old and new forms of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentenci(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 11 Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act was amended to prescribe a different mann(...TRUNCATED)

"Under the old form of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, which applied to offence(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What changes were made to Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act in New (...TRUNCATED)

"The sentencing structure under the old and new forms of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Proced(...TRUNCATED)

"How does the sentencing structure differ under the old and new forms of Section 44 of the Crimes (S(...TRUNCATED)

"The old form of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, which applied to all offences (...TRUNCATED)

[ 566 1968]

"[-0.086128830909729, -0.10069213807582855, -0.07507859915494919, -0.2075207233428955, 0.24242794513(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.08524221926927567, 0.03350608050823212, 0.04588552564382553, -0.10085274279117584, 0.2912288308(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.1289568543434143, -0.28314706683158875, -0.7455564737319946, -0.15728838741779327, 0.1290402114(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.01946346089243889, -0.12746095657348633, -0.05334647744894028, -0.2720648944377899, 0.266709715(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.07383330911397934, 0.0236778873950243, -0.01934668980538845, -0.05514184385538101, 0.3100443184(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.17468424141407013, -0.15482939779758453, -0.6523460745811462, -0.1366344839334488, 0.1259262263(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.4300503730773926, -0.14913465082645416, -0.05889207497239113, -0.4097102880477905, 0.2874257862(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.25043296813964844, 0.06096917763352394, 0.14786405861377716, -0.04532957077026367, 0.2727227509(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.22175201773643494, -0.269228994846344, -0.7824200987815857, -0.2777618169784546, -0.08970811218(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.45296022295951843, -0.12804660201072693, -0.05820076912641525, -0.3974146842956543, 0.267961651(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.22730720043182373, 0.04961420223116875, 0.11626516282558441, -0.05080712214112282, 0.2388601303(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.2750517725944519, -0.22051391005516052, -0.7791528701782227, -0.28943243622779846, -0.086921468(...TRUNCATED)

"I'm sorry, but I cannot provide specific information on Airworthiness Directives for Boeing 747 Ser(...TRUNCATED)

"\" COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY(...TRUNCATED)

"The specific requirement for DH114 (Heron) Series Aeroplanes as per Airworthiness Directive AD/DH11(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the compliance requirement for the inspection of the Flap Datum Hinge Safety (...TRUNCATED)

"The compliance requirement for the inspection of the Flap Datum Hinge Safety Washer in all models o(...TRUNCATED)

"\" COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY(...TRUNCATED)

"The specific requirement for DH114 (Heron) Series Aeroplanes as per Airworthiness Directive AD/DH11(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the compliance requirement for the inspection of the Flap Datum Hinge Safety (...TRUNCATED)

"The compliance requirement for the inspection of the Flap Datum Hinge Safety Washer in all models o(...TRUNCATED)

"\" COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY(...TRUNCATED)

"The specific requirement for DH114 (Heron) Series Aeroplanes as per Airworthiness Directive AD/DH11(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the compliance requirement for the inspection of the Flap Datum Hinge Safety (...TRUNCATED)

"As per the Civil Aviation Regulations 1998 of the Commonwealth of Australia, the compliance require(...TRUNCATED)

"\" COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY(...TRUNCATED)

"For Boeing 747 Series Aeroplanes, the specific requirements as per the Airworthiness Directives fro(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the compliance requirement for the inspection of the Flap Datum Hinge Safety (...TRUNCATED)

"The specific requirements for Boeing 747 Series Aeroplanes and DH114 (Heron) Series Aeroplanes as p(...TRUNCATED)

"\" COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY(...TRUNCATED)

"The specific requirements for Boeing 747 Series Aeroplanes and DH114 (Heron) Series Aeroplanes as p(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the compliance requirement for the inspection of the Flap Datum Hinge Safety (...TRUNCATED)

"The specific requirements for Boeing 747 Series Aeroplanes and DH114 (Heron) Series Aeroplanes as p(...TRUNCATED)

"\" COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY(...TRUNCATED)

"The specific requirements for Boeing 747 Series Aeroplanes and DH114 (Heron) Series Aeroplanes as p(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the compliance requirement for the inspection of the Flap Datum Hinge Safety (...TRUNCATED)

"The specific requirements for Boeing 747 Series Aeroplanes and DH114 (Heron) Series Aeroplanes as p(...TRUNCATED)

"What are the specific requirements for Boeing 747 Series Aeroplanes and DH114 (Heron) Series Aeropl(...TRUNCATED)

"For Boeing 747 Series Aeroplanes, the Airworthiness Directive AD/B747/24 requires modification of t(...TRUNCATED)

[1466 1486]

"[0.15021291375160217, 0.2642771303653717, 0.06783647835254669, 0.04200979694724083, 0.3375545442104(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.17781013250350952, 0.28141024708747864, 0.22531390190124512, 0.0014223442412912846, 0.5361640453(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.6273146867752075, 0.4227374792098999, 0.17494593560695648, -0.011448180302977562, 0.256680965423(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.09855014085769653, 0.22745323181152344, 0.11953151226043701, -0.059277962893247604, 0.2620888650(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.1508861631155014, 0.25192752480506897, 0.13496772944927216, 0.005204483401030302, 0.525569200515(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.4547281265258789, 0.5376385450363159, 0.047139041125774384, 0.06008058041334152, 0.3723156154155(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.22516855597496033, 0.05786780267953873, 0.2257322072982788, -0.12071223556995392, 0.42646783590(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.12393543124198914, -0.025270920246839523, 0.16796335577964783, -0.07572963833808899, 0.42045092(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.1863621026277542, 0.2791902422904968, 0.38073039054870605, -0.09704636037349701, 0.0898698568344(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.23819014430046082, 0.06163603439927101, 0.23226426541805267, -0.13913403451442719, 0.4059869050(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.11252041906118393, -0.020380426198244095, 0.15464183688163757, -0.06877968460321426, 0.40313625(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.13448837399482727, 0.3265984058380127, 0.3959676921367645, -0.09813890606164932, 0.1282366812229(...TRUNCATED)

"The key differences in the applicability and compliance requirements between the Airworthiness Dire(...TRUNCATED)

"\" COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY(...TRUNCATED)

"The key differences in the applicability and compliance requirements between the Airworthiness Dire(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the compliance requirement for the Control Wheel Adaptor as per the AD/BEECH (...TRUNCATED)

"COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AU(...TRUNCATED)

"\" COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY(...TRUNCATED)

"The key differences in the applicability and compliance requirements between the Airworthiness Dire(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"Under the Commonwealth Civil Aviation Regulations 1998, what is the compliance requir(...TRUNCATED)

"The key differences in the applicability and compliance requirements between the Airworthiness Dire(...TRUNCATED)

"\" COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY(...TRUNCATED)

"The key differences in the applicability and compliance requirements between the Airworthiness Dire(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the applicability of the airworthiness directive AD/GULL/2 concerning rear fu(...TRUNCATED)

"COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART XX - XX CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUT(...TRUNCATED)

"\" COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY(...TRUNCATED)

"The key differences in the applicability and compliance requirements between the Airworthiness Dire(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the compliance requirement for the Control Wheel Adaptor as per the AD/BEECH (...TRUNCATED)

"The key differences in the applicability and compliance requirements between the Airworthiness Dire(...TRUNCATED)

"\" COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY(...TRUNCATED)

"The key differences in the applicability and compliance requirements between the Airworthiness Dire(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"Under the Commonwealth Civil Aviation Regulations 1998, what is the compliance requir(...TRUNCATED)

"The key differences in the applicability and compliance requirements between the Airworthiness Dire(...TRUNCATED)

"\" COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY(...TRUNCATED)

"The key differences in the applicability and compliance requirements between the Airworthiness Dire(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the applicability of the airworthiness directive AD/GULL/2 concerning rear fu(...TRUNCATED)

"The key differences in the applicability and compliance requirements between the Airworthiness Dire(...TRUNCATED)

"What are the key differences in the applicability and compliance requirements between the Airworthi(...TRUNCATED)

"The Airworthiness Directive (AD) for Fokker F28 Series Aeroplanes, specifically AD/F28/77 Amdt 1, m(...TRUNCATED)

[1508 1928]

"[-0.00017284211935475469, 0.25689345598220825, 0.08153745532035828, 0.027316713705658913, 0.2820357(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.10534936189651489, 0.05295746773481369, 0.19963482022285461, -0.03485975041985512, 0.5724732875(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.42332953214645386, 0.29551276564598083, 0.13585692644119263, 0.05354493483901024, -0.07090131938(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.015311392024159431, 0.1417405903339386, 0.09044614434242249, -0.02320219948887825, 0.3024555444(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.11512213945388794, 0.07270382344722748, 0.14291493594646454, 0.027014875784516335, 0.5570278763(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.17148461937904358, 0.33494460582733154, 0.008813031017780304, 0.07863441854715347, 0.05282835289(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.18850964307785034, 0.24820782244205475, 0.2521064281463623, -0.03298216685652733, 0.44388812780(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.2620581388473511, 0.08607279509305954, 0.08630363643169403, -0.2032170295715332, 0.546349227428(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.326978474855423, 0.6718325614929199, 0.5969399213790894, -0.13008339703083038, 0.301926225423812(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.19573768973350525, 0.21991270780563354, 0.25773218274116516, -0.04178840294480324, 0.4018194079(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.28118979930877686, 0.09423255175352097, 0.05428947135806084, -0.17284752428531647, 0.5197900533(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.23594921827316284, 0.7159038782119751, 0.5706185102462769, -0.08144927024841309, 0.3349665999412(...TRUNCATED)

"The common procedures followed by Commissioner Susan Dixon and Commissioner Annelise Tuor as per th(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 19 However, it is not just the statement of principle in Batistatos or, more accurately Agar v H(...TRUNCATED)

"In the judgments made by Commissioner Susan Dixon and Commissioner Annelise Tuor, the common proced(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of Neeson v Amora Company Limited and ors (No 2) [2007] NSWIRComm 139, wh(...TRUNCATED)

"In the judgments made by Commissioner Susan Dixon and Commissioner Annelise Tuor, the common proced(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 22 Referring to the most recent revocation of parole and observing that the respondent had been (...TRUNCATED)

"In the judgments made by Commissioner Susan Dixon and Commissioner Annelise Tuor, common procedures(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of R v Smith [2003] NSWCCA 381, what factors did the judge consider as ju(...TRUNCATED)

"In the judgments made by Commissioner Susan Dixon and Commissioner Annelise Tuor, the common proced(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement und(...TRUNCATED)

"In the judgments made by Commissioner Susan Dixon and Commissioner Annelise Tuor, the common proced(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the role of the presiding Commissioner in the case of an agreement reached un(...TRUNCATED)

"In the judgments made by Commissioner Susan Dixon and Commissioner Annelise Tuor, the common proced(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 19 However, it is not just the statement of principle in Batistatos or, more accurately Agar v H(...TRUNCATED)

"In the judgments made by Commissioner Susan Dixon and Commissioner Annelise Tuor, the common proced(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of Neeson v Amora Company Limited and ors (No 2) [2007] NSWIRComm 139, wh(...TRUNCATED)

"In the judgments made by Commissioner Susan Dixon and Commissioner Annelise Tuor, the common proced(...TRUNCATED)

"\" 22 Referring to the most recent revocation of parole and observing that the respondent had been (...TRUNCATED)

"In the judgments made by Commissioner Susan Dixon and Commissioner Annelise Tuor, common procedures(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of R v Smith [2003] NSWCCA 381, what factors did the judge consider as ju(...TRUNCATED)

"In the judgments made by Commissioner Susan Dixon and Commissioner Annelise Tuor, the common proced(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Judgment 1. COMMISSIONER: In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement und(...TRUNCATED)

"In the judgments made by Commissioner Susan Dixon and Commissioner Annelise Tuor, the common proced(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the role of the presiding Commissioner in the case of an agreement reached un(...TRUNCATED)

"In the judgments made by Commissioner Susan Dixon and Commissioner Annelise Tuor, the common proced(...TRUNCATED)

"In the judgments made by Commissioner Susan Dixon and Commissioner Annelise Tuor, what are the comm(...TRUNCATED)

"Both Commissioner Susan Dixon and Commissioner Annelise Tuor followed similar procedures in their j(...TRUNCATED)

[897 907]

"[0.025714773684740067, -0.043090883642435074, 0.15523670613765717, -0.2086128443479538, 0.215715751(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.03737148270010948, 0.30224883556365967, 0.15925092995166779, 0.0024468598421663046, 0.3939974904(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.0023732660338282585, -0.1447940170764923, -0.24119071662425995, -0.02894146740436554, 0.22083634(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.05698379501700401, -0.07684947550296783, 0.12508447468280792, -0.21373245120048523, 0.2062954753(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.03528956323862076, 0.28450819849967957, 0.08721047639846802, 0.09123720228672028, 0.335983097553(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.12175329774618149, 0.027633829042315483, -0.173624649643898, -0.06928135454654694, 0.2342219799(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.36231690645217896, 0.1272309273481369, 0.20690858364105225, -0.35183823108673096, 0.27041876316(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.11491002142429352, 0.13733349740505219, 0.19141030311584473, -0.04552198201417923, 0.2133621573(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.16565640270709991, 0.037388477474451065, 0.0506884790956974, -0.18041644990444183, -0.113253258(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.3455265760421753, 0.1431856006383896, 0.19482286274433136, -0.3449871242046356, 0.2896051108837(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.10178757458925247, 0.1341363787651062, 0.1653069704771042, -0.025149138644337654, 0.21166887879(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.20082980394363403, 0.08805928379297256, 0.049572572112083435, -0.1858915239572525, -0.101052984(...TRUNCATED)

"Case 1: \n\nApplicants: \n- The applicant in this case was a property developer seeking approval fo(...TRUNCATED)

"\"City of Botany Bay Council submissions. 21. The respondent in the proceedings supported the joind(...TRUNCATED)

"In the two separate development application cases held in the Land and Environment Court of New Sou(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the test for joinder as stated in the case of Ross v Lane Cove Council [2014](...TRUNCATED)

"In the two separate development application cases held in the Land and Environment Court of New Sou(...TRUNCATED)

"\"7For the purpose of determining the separate questions, the parties have agreed upon a Statement (...TRUNCATED)

"In the two separate development application cases held in the Land and Environment Court of New Sou(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of Hornsby Shire Council v Trives [2014] NSWLEC 171, what were the land u(...TRUNCATED)

"\"In the two separate development application cases held in the Land and Environment Court of New S(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Dromore Properties Pty Ltd v (...TRUNCATED)

"In the case of Dromore Properties Pty Ltd v Byron Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1324, the applicant w(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What was the decision in the case of Dromore Properties Pty Ltd v Byron Shire Council(...TRUNCATED)

"In the two separate development application cases held in the Land and Environment Court of New Sou(...TRUNCATED)

"\"City of Botany Bay Council submissions. 21. The respondent in the proceedings supported the joind(...TRUNCATED)

"In the two separate development application cases held in the Land and Environment Court of New Sou(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What is the test for joinder as stated in the case of Ross v Lane Cove Council [2014](...TRUNCATED)

"\"In the two separate development application cases held in the Land and Environment Court of New S(...TRUNCATED)

"\"7For the purpose of determining the separate questions, the parties have agreed upon a Statement (...TRUNCATED)

"In the two separate development application cases held in the Land and Environment Court of New Sou(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"In the case of Hornsby Shire Council v Trives [2014] NSWLEC 171, what were the land u(...TRUNCATED)

"\"In the case of Hornsby Shire Council v Trives [2014] NSWLEC 171, the applicants were Hornsby Shir(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Dromore Properties Pty Ltd v (...TRUNCATED)

"In the case of Dromore Properties Pty Ltd v Byron Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 1324, the applicant w(...TRUNCATED)

"\"Question: \"What was the decision in the case of Dromore Properties Pty Ltd v Byron Shire Council(...TRUNCATED)

"Dromore Properties Pty Ltd (Applicant) Byron Shire Council (Respondent) M Young, McCartney Young La(...TRUNCATED)

"In the two separate development application cases held in the Land and Environment Court of New Sou(...TRUNCATED)

"In the first case, Carlton Crescent Development Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2018] NSWLEC 1525, th(...TRUNCATED)

[944 961]

"[-0.2238706797361374, -0.007589583285152912, -0.07527580112218857, -0.0400969572365284, 0.306228488(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.00920430850237608, 0.2334461510181427, 0.1394200325012207, -0.011115153320133686, 0.034454490989(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.16463066637516022, 0.037474364042282104, -0.08771754801273346, -0.04100064933300018, 0.276234030(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.11909535527229309, -0.041183918714523315, -0.0939267948269844, -0.02628404088318348, 0.30848085(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.03520782291889191, 0.12481970340013504, 0.036397673189640045, 0.14869605004787445, 0.0211590044(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.008392482995986938, 0.16243430972099304, -0.16464316844940186, -0.03200213983654976, 0.301675617(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.18306557834148407, -0.11856477707624435, 0.3248782455921173, -0.2963092029094696, 0.23298271000(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.12013640999794006, 0.11427599936723709, 0.11821665614843369, -0.10781560093164444, 0.23022989928(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.19277451932430267, -0.33464211225509644, 0.22144165635108948, -0.06818707287311554, -0.17400622(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.1787661463022232, -0.11773624271154404, 0.2941116988658905, -0.27195262908935547, 0.21445521712(...TRUNCATED)

"[0.08642206341028214, 0.12318853288888931, 0.07549403607845306, -0.07182067632675171, 0.25206816196(...TRUNCATED)

"[-0.23619797825813293, -0.21509474515914917, 0.16103701293468475, -0.07617542892694473, -0.09859248(...TRUNCATED)