Datasets:

Ramitha

/

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

like 0

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

[1166]

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

"\nIn the case of Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners [1999] FCA 368, the court made a (...TRUNCATED)

[1166]

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

"In the case Garawin Pty Ltd v 1A Eden Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2022] NSWSC 1417, the court did not rule in (...TRUNCATED)

[106]

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

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

[106]

"\"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)

[1145]

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

"In the case of Econ Holdings Pty Ltd v Sims Lockwood & Partners, the court held that an application(...TRUNCATED)

[1145]

"\"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)

[1166 1145 563]

"\"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's decision w(...TRUNCATED)

[1166 1145 563]

"\"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)

[ 106 761 1603]

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

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

[ 106 761 1603]

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

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

[1145 1950 640]

"\" 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)

[1145 1950 640]

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

"In the case of Endeavour Energy Network Management Pty Limited [2017] NSWSC 1825, the court's decis(...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)

"\nAs a neutral AI language model, I cannot make a decision on whether to disclose specific details (...TRUNCATED)

[347]

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

"\nBased on the context provided, it seems that there are two Events in question: Event 38832023 and(...TRUNCATED)

[347]

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

"The answer to your question is: Yes, the specific details in Events 38832023 and 3860136 should be (...TRUNCATED)

[1430]

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

"Based on the context provided, it is likely that the specific details in Events 38832023 and 386013(...TRUNCATED)

[1430]

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

"Answer: Considering the balance of public interest and the potential impact on individuals, the spe(...TRUNCATED)

[347]

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

"\nConsidering the balance of public interest and the potential impact on individuals, I recommend t(...TRUNCATED)

[347]

"\"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, it is not recom(...TRUNCATED)

[ 347 2042 628]

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

"Based on the information provided, I would argue that the specific details in Events 38832023 and 3(...TRUNCATED)

[ 347 2042 628]

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

"In the case of Earwaker v Randwick City Council [2020] NSWLEC 1346, the responsibility of a person (...TRUNCATED)

[1430 1606 1920]

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

"Based on the provided contexts, it is important to consider the balance of public interest and pote(...TRUNCATED)

[1430 1606 1920]

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

"The answer to the question \"Should the specific details in Events 38832023 and 3860136 be disclose(...TRUNCATED)

[347 369 933]

"\" * 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, it is arguable (...TRUNCATED)

[347 369 933]

"\"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, the specific de(...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)

"\nIn the Supreme Court of New South Wales, there have been several notable cases that have fallen u(...TRUNCATED)

[1145]

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

"In the two cases heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Slattery J and Einstein J made the (...TRUNCATED)

[1145]

"\"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)

[488]

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

"In the two cases heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Slattery J and Einstein J respectiv(...TRUNCATED)

[488]

"\"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)

[1145]

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

"\nIn the two separate cases heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Slattery J and Einstein (...TRUNCATED)

[1145]

"\"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)

[1145 1166 1138]

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

"In the two cases heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Slattery J and Einstein J respectiv(...TRUNCATED)

[1145 1166 1138]

"\"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)

[488 81 124]

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

"In the two cases heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Slattery J and Einstein J delivered(...TRUNCATED)

[488 81 124]

"\"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)

[1145 2047 1138]

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

"In the two cases heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Slattery J and Einstein J made the (...TRUNCATED)

[1145 2047 1138]

"\"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)

"\nIn the Federal Court Rules, an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) can affect the commencement of pro(...TRUNCATED)

[563]

"\"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) can affect the commen(...TRUNCATED)

[563]

"\"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, an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) can affect the commen(...TRUNCATED)

[1881]

"\"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)

[1881]

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

"The answer to the question \"In the context of the Federal Court Rules, how does an amendment under(...TRUNCATED)

[1881]

"\"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) can affect the commen(...TRUNCATED)

[1881]

"\"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, an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) affects the commencem(...TRUNCATED)

[563 810 640]

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

"\nIn the context of the Federal Court Rules, an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) can affect the comm(...TRUNCATED)

[563 810 640]

"\"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, an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) can affect the commen(...TRUNCATED)

[1881 810 1305]

"\"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) can affect the commen(...TRUNCATED)

[1881 810 1305]

"\"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, an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) does not affect the c(...TRUNCATED)

[1881 342 810]

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

"\nIn the context of the Federal Court Rules, an amendment under rule 8.21(1)(d) can affect the comm(...TRUNCATED)

[1881 342 810]

"\"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 c(...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)

"\nThe Hiller UH-12 Series Helicopters and Cessna 210 Series Aeroplanes are subject to various Airwo(...TRUNCATED)

[2063]

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

"The Airworthiness Directive (AD) you are referring to is AD/HU 369/121 Amdt 2, which applies to the(...TRUNCATED)

[2063]

"\"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)

[1018]

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

"To answer your question, we need to analyze the context provided and identify the specific models o(...TRUNCATED)

[1018]

"\"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)

[1422]

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

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

[1422]

"\"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)

[2063 1276 475]

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

"\nBased on the provided Airworthiness Directives, the specific models of aircraft that require insp(...TRUNCATED)

[2063 1276 475]

"\"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)

[1018 905 1486]

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

"Based on the provided Airworthiness Directives (ADs), the following are the specific models of Hill(...TRUNCATED)

[1018 905 1486]

"\"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)

[1422 1486 475]

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

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

[1422 1486 475]

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

"The answer to your question is a simple string without any structure, as per the provided context:\(...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)

"\nUnder the old form of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act (CSPA), which was in ef(...TRUNCATED)

[1968]

"\" 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)

[1968]

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

"The old form of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act allowed for a judge to consider(...TRUNCATED)

[566]

"\" 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 offense(...TRUNCATED)

[566]

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

"The old form of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act in New South Wales required the(...TRUNCATED)

[566]

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

"\nThe sentencing structure differs under the old and new forms of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentenc(...TRUNCATED)

[566]

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

"The old form of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act in New South Wales required the(...TRUNCATED)

[1968 566 834]

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

"\nUnder the old form of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, the court was required(...TRUNCATED)

[1968 566 834]

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

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

[ 566 1968 1009]

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

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

[ 566 1968 1009]

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

"The answer to your question is a simple string without any structure:\n\n\"After 1 February 2003, S(...TRUNCATED)

[ 566 1163 228]

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

"\nThe sentencing structure under the old and new forms of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Proc(...TRUNCATED)

[ 566 1163 228]

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

"The old form of Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act in New South Wales required the(...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)

"\nThe Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) of Australia issues Airworthiness Directives (ADs) to (...TRUNCATED)

[1486]

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

"\nAccording to the Airworthiness Directive from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority of Australia, t(...TRUNCATED)

[1486]

"\"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)

[1486]

"\" 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)

[1486]

"\"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)

[1486]

"\" 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)

[1486]

"\"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)

[1486 1276 1896]

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

"The specific requirements for Boeing 747 Series Aeroplanes and De Havilland DH114 (Heron) Series Ae(...TRUNCATED)

[1486 1276 1896]

"\"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)

[1486 1267 1018]

"\" 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)

[1486 1267 1018]

"\"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)

[1486 1267 475]

"\" 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)

[1486 1267 475]

"\"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)

"\nThe Airworthiness Directive (AD) is a document issued by aviation authorities to specify actions (...TRUNCATED)

[236]

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

"\nThe key differences in the applicability and compliance requirements between the Airworthiness Di(...TRUNCATED)

[236]

"\"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)

[1018]

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

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

[1018]

"\"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)

[1540]

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

"\nThe key differences in the applicability and compliance requirements between Airworthiness Direct(...TRUNCATED)

[1540]

"\"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)

[ 236 1707 475]

"\" 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)

[ 236 1707 475]

"\"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)

[1018 1059 1236]

"\" 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)

[1018 1059 1236]

"\"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)

[1540 1508 236]

"\" 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)

[1540 1508 236]

"\"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)

"\nThe Land and Environment Court Act 1979 sets out the procedures that must be followed by the Comm(...TRUNCATED)

[1145]

"\" 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)

[1145]

"\"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)

[1968]

"\" 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, the common proced(...TRUNCATED)

[1968]

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

"The common procedures followed by Commissioner Susan Dixon and Commissioner Annelise Tuor in making(...TRUNCATED)

[907]

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

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

[907]

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

"The answer to your question can be simply stated as follows:\n\nIn the case of Fegan (nee Rozenauer(...TRUNCATED)

[1145 1152 1420]

"\" 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)

[1145 1152 1420]

"\"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)

[1968 63 1451]

"\" 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, there are common (...TRUNCATED)

[1968 63 1451]

"\"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)

[ 907 1856 1145]

"\"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)

[ 907 1856 1145]

"\"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)

"\n Case 1:\n\n* Applicant: Mr. John Smith (a resident of the area)\n* Respondent: Council of the Ci(...TRUNCATED)

[889]

"\"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)

[889]

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

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

[1088]

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

"\nIn the two separate development application cases heard in the Land and Environment Court of New (...TRUNCATED)

[1088]

"\"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 Shire (...TRUNCATED)

[1171]

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

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

[1171]

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

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

[ 889 1138 1152]

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

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

[ 889 1138 1152]

"\"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)

[1088 1230 889]

"\"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)

[1088 1230 889]

"\"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 Shire (...TRUNCATED)

[1171 944 961]

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

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

[1171 944 961]

"\"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)

"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)