mdroth/huggingface-course_section-5_zst huggingface dataset:
Case: La Macchia v Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (1992) 110 ALR 201
Outcome: cited
In my view, there is little to add to the observations of his Honour in Hicks . Similar observations have been made in many other Federal Court cases including La Macchia v Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (1992) 110 ALR 201 at 204 (per Burchett J), Bank of Western Australia v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1994) 55 FCR 233 at 255 (per Lindgren J), Nezovic v MIMIA [2003] FCA 1263 ; (2003) 133 FCR 190 at 206 (per French J), and Koara People v State of Western Australia [2006] FCA 66 at par 29 (per Nicholson J). The principle of comity is applied in other Australian courts in respect of decisions of single judges: I note, by way of illustration, Durovic trading as Shell Tornik Roadhouse v Judge , unreported Supreme Court of New South Wales, Rolfe J, 25 February 1997; Zotovic v Dobel Boat Hire Pty Ltd (1985) 62 ACTR 29 at 32 (per Blackburn CJ); Anteden Pty Ltd v Glen Eira City Council [2000] VSC 366 par 25 (per Balmford J); McDermott Projects Pty Ltd v Chadwell Pty Ltd (2002) 2 QdR 363 at 365 (per Holmes J); and Swetnam Brothers Pty Ltd v Grundy , unreported Supreme Court of Tasmania, Wright J, 14 March 1997. The principle of judicial comity as between Courts of equal status is long-standing in the United Kingdom; the principle is discussed, with many case citations, in Halsbury's Law of England , 4 th Edition Reissue vol 37 at par 1244. I also note similar comments in A MacAdam and J Pyke, Judicial Reasoning and the Doctrine of Precedent in Australia (Butterworths, Sydney, 1998) at 179-180.
Case: McDermott Projects Pty Ltd v Chadwell Pty Ltd (2002) 2 QdR 363
Outcome: cited
In my view, there is little to add to the observations of his Honour in Hicks . Similar observations have been made in many other Federal Court cases including La Macchia v Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (1992) 110 ALR 201 at 204 (per Burchett J), Bank of Western Australia v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1994) 55 FCR 233 at 255 (per Lindgren J), Nezovic v MIMIA [2003] FCA 1263 ; (2003) 133 FCR 190 at 206 (per French J), and Koara People v State of Western Australia [2006] FCA 66 at par 29 (per Nicholson J). The principle of comity is applied in other Australian courts in respect of decisions of single judges: I note, by way of illustration, Durovic trading as Shell Tornik Roadhouse v Judge , unreported Supreme Court of New South Wales, Rolfe J, 25 February 1997; Zotovic v Dobel Boat Hire Pty Ltd (1985) 62 ACTR 29 at 32 (per Blackburn CJ); Anteden Pty Ltd v Glen Eira City Council [2000] VSC 366 par 25 (per Balmford J); McDermott Projects Pty Ltd v Chadwell Pty Ltd (2002) 2 QdR 363 at 365 (per Holmes J); and Swetnam Brothers Pty Ltd v Grundy , unreported Supreme Court of Tasmania, Wright J, 14 March 1997. The principle of judicial comity as between Courts of equal status is long-standing in the United Kingdom; the principle is discussed, with many case citations, in Halsbury's Law of England , 4 th Edition Reissue vol 37 at par 1244. I also note similar comments in A MacAdam and J Pyke, Judicial Reasoning and the Doctrine of Precedent in Australia (Butterworths, Sydney, 1998) at 179-180.
Case: Nezovic v MIMIA [2003] FCA 1263 ; (2003) 133 FCR 190
Outcome: cited
In my view, there is little to add to the observations of his Honour in Hicks . Similar observations have been made in many other Federal Court cases including La Macchia v Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (1992) 110 ALR 201 at 204 (per Burchett J), Bank of Western Australia v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1994) 55 FCR 233 at 255 (per Lindgren J), Nezovic v MIMIA [2003] FCA 1263 ; (2003) 133 FCR 190 at 206 (per French J), and Koara People v State of Western Australia [2006] FCA 66 at par 29 (per Nicholson J). The principle of comity is applied in other Australian courts in respect of decisions of single judges: I note, by way of illustration, Durovic trading as Shell Tornik Roadhouse v Judge , unreported Supreme Court of New South Wales, Rolfe J, 25 February 1997; Zotovic v Dobel Boat Hire Pty Ltd (1985) 62 ACTR 29 at 32 (per Blackburn CJ); Anteden Pty Ltd v Glen Eira City Council [2000] VSC 366 par 25 (per Balmford J); McDermott Projects Pty Ltd v Chadwell Pty Ltd (2002) 2 QdR 363 at 365 (per Holmes J); and Swetnam Brothers Pty Ltd v Grundy , unreported Supreme Court of Tasmania, Wright J, 14 March 1997. The principle of judicial comity as between Courts of equal status is long-standing in the United Kingdom; the principle is discussed, with many case citations, in Halsbury's Law of England , 4 th Edition Reissue vol 37 at par 1244. I also note similar comments in A MacAdam and J Pyke, Judicial Reasoning and the Doctrine of Precedent in Australia (Butterworths, Sydney, 1998) at 179-180.
Case: Swetnam Brothers Pty Ltd v Grundy , unreported Supreme Court of Tasmania, Wright J, 14 March 1997
Outcome: cited
In my view, there is little to add to the observations of his Honour in Hicks . Similar observations have been made in many other Federal Court cases including La Macchia v Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (1992) 110 ALR 201 at 204 (per Burchett J), Bank of Western Australia v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1994) 55 FCR 233 at 255 (per Lindgren J), Nezovic v MIMIA [2003] FCA 1263 ; (2003) 133 FCR 190 at 206 (per French J), and Koara People v State of Western Australia [2006] FCA 66 at par 29 (per Nicholson J). The principle of comity is applied in other Australian courts in respect of decisions of single judges: I note, by way of illustration, Durovic trading as Shell Tornik Roadhouse v Judge , unreported Supreme Court of New South Wales, Rolfe J, 25 February 1997; Zotovic v Dobel Boat Hire Pty Ltd (1985) 62 ACTR 29 at 32 (per Blackburn CJ); Anteden Pty Ltd v Glen Eira City Council [2000] VSC 366 par 25 (per Balmford J); McDermott Projects Pty Ltd v Chadwell Pty Ltd (2002) 2 QdR 363 at 365 (per Holmes J); and Swetnam Brothers Pty Ltd v Grundy , unreported Supreme Court of Tasmania, Wright J, 14 March 1997. The principle of judicial comity as between Courts of equal status is long-standing in the United Kingdom; the principle is discussed, with many case citations, in Halsbury's Law of England , 4 th Edition Reissue vol 37 at par 1244. I also note similar comments in A MacAdam and J Pyke, Judicial Reasoning and the Doctrine of Precedent in Australia (Butterworths, Sydney, 1998) at 179-180.
Case: Zotovic v Dobel Boat Hire Pty Ltd (1985) 62 ACTR 29
Outcome: cited
In my view, there is little to add to the observations of his Honour in Hicks . Similar observations have been made in many other Federal Court cases including La Macchia v Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (1992) 110 ALR 201 at 204 (per Burchett J), Bank of Western Australia v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1994) 55 FCR 233 at 255 (per Lindgren J), Nezovic v MIMIA [2003] FCA 1263 ; (2003) 133 FCR 190 at 206 (per French J), and Koara People v State of Western Australia [2006] FCA 66 at par 29 (per Nicholson J). The principle of comity is applied in other Australian courts in respect of decisions of single judges: I note, by way of illustration, Durovic trading as Shell Tornik Roadhouse v Judge , unreported Supreme Court of New South Wales, Rolfe J, 25 February 1997; Zotovic v Dobel Boat Hire Pty Ltd (1985) 62 ACTR 29 at 32 (per Blackburn CJ); Anteden Pty Ltd v Glen Eira City Council [2000] VSC 366 par 25 (per Balmford J); McDermott Projects Pty Ltd v Chadwell Pty Ltd (2002) 2 QdR 363 at 365 (per Holmes J); and Swetnam Brothers Pty Ltd v Grundy , unreported Supreme Court of Tasmania, Wright J, 14 March 1997. The principle of judicial comity as between Courts of equal status is long-standing in the United Kingdom; the principle is discussed, with many case citations, in Halsbury's Law of England , 4 th Edition Reissue vol 37 at par 1244. I also note similar comments in A MacAdam and J Pyke, Judicial Reasoning and the Doctrine of Precedent in Australia (Butterworths, Sydney, 1998) at 179-180.
Case: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Econovite Pty Ltd [2003] ATPR 41-959
Outcome: cited
In my view, it is appropriate for there to be orders in accordance with the minute of proposed orders. The orders are within power and otherwise appropriate: ACCC v Target Australia Pty Ltd [2001] ATPR 41-840 at [24] and ACCC v Econovite Pty Ltd [2003] ATPR 41-959 at [12]. Moreover, in the circumstances, it is in the public interest that these proceedings be settled: see Kiefel J in NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v ACCC (1996) 71 FCR 285 at 291.
Case: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Target Australia Pty Ltd [2001] ATPR 41-840
Outcome: cited
In my view, it is appropriate for there to be orders in accordance with the minute of proposed orders. The orders are within power and otherwise appropriate: ACCC v Target Australia Pty Ltd [2001] ATPR 41-840 at [24] and ACCC v Econovite Pty Ltd [2003] ATPR 41-959 at [12]. Moreover, in the circumstances, it is in the public interest that these proceedings be settled: see Kiefel J in NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v ACCC (1996) 71 FCR 285 at 291.
Case: Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Rich (No 2) (2004) 22 ACLC 1232
Outcome: cited
As a general principle, a court does not make declarations on matters relating to public rights by consent or on admissions, but only if it is satisfied by evidence: ASIC v Rich (No 2) (2004) 22 ACLC 1232 at [10]; Williams v Powell [1894] WN (Eng) 141; Gramophone Co Ltd v Magazine Holder Co (1911) 28 RPC 221 at 225 227; Termijtelen v Van Arkel [1974] 1 NSWLR 525; Wallersteiner v Moir [1974] 3 All ER 217; Metzger v Department of Health and Social Security [1977] 3 All ER 444 at 451; BMI Ltd v Federated Clerks Union of Australia (NSW) Branch (1983) 51 ALR 401; Young P W, Declaratory Orders (2nd ed, 1984) [601].
Case: BMI Ltd v Federated Clerks Union of Australia (NSW) Branch (1983) 51 ALR 401
Outcome: cited
As a general principle, a court does not make declarations on matters relating to public rights by consent or on admissions, but only if it is satisfied by evidence: ASIC v Rich (No 2) (2004) 22 ACLC 1232 at [10]; Williams v Powell [1894] WN (Eng) 141; Gramophone Co Ltd v Magazine Holder Co (1911) 28 RPC 221 at 225 227; Termijtelen v Van Arkel [1974] 1 NSWLR 525; Wallersteiner v Moir [1974] 3 All ER 217; Metzger v Department of Health and Social Security [1977] 3 All ER 444 at 451; BMI Ltd v Federated Clerks Union of Australia (NSW) Branch (1983) 51 ALR 401; Young P W, Declaratory Orders (2nd ed, 1984) [601].
Case: Gillette Australia Pty Ltd v Energizer Australia Pty Ltd (2002) 193 ALR 629
Outcome: followed
I have carefully reviewed the Advertising Material several times and have sought to assess the likely effect of each on potential customers. In reviewing the Advertising Material I had at the forefront the caution from Lindgren J in Gillette Australia Pty Ltd v Energizer Australia Pty Ltd (2002) 193 ALR 629 at [47] regarding television advertising. Of course, similar caution must be adopted when reviewing the Advertising Material. 9 I accept that the following Representations were conveyed in the following Advertising Material: Advertising Material Episode Representations Conveyed The Age First to Sixth Advertisements 23 June 2007, 7, 14, 28 July 2007 4 and 11 August 2007 7 Seat Representation Price Representation 7 Seat Price Representation The Age Seventh Advertisement (18 August 2007) 7 Seat Representation 7 Seat Price Representation Sydney Morning Herald Eighth Advertisement (30 June 1 July 2007) 7 Seat Representation Price Representation 7 Seat Price Representation Sydney Morning Herald Ninth and Tenth Advertisements (7-8 July 2007 and 21-22 July 2007) 7 Seat Series Representation Audi Website 7 Seat Series Representation 2007 Specifications Brochure August 2007 7 Seat Series Representation 2006 Specifications Brochure August 2006 7 Seat Series Representation 10 Next, the ACCC submits that the Representations were false, misleading or deceptive on the basis that: (1) the Audi Q7 Series motor vehicles including the Audi Q7 3.6 SE have 5 seats as a standard feature; (2) 7 seats is an option available in the Audi Q7 Series motor vehicles including the Audi Q7 3.6 SE; (3) the Audi Q7 3.6 SE is not available for purchase as a 7 seat vehicle at or from $79,900; (4) the Audi Q7 3.6 SE is not available for purchase at or from $79,900; (5) there is a fee or charge to be paid in addition to the price of $79,900 to purchase an Audi Q7 3.6 SE vehicle for mandatory components including dealer delivery and statutory charges; and (6) there is a fee or charge to be paid in addition to the price of $79,900 for the 2 optional extra seats (in order to have 7 seats).
Case: Gramophone Co Ltd v Magazine Holder Co (1911) 28 RPC 221
Outcome: cited
As a general principle, a court does not make declarations on matters relating to public rights by consent or on admissions, but only if it is satisfied by evidence: ASIC v Rich (No 2) (2004) 22 ACLC 1232 at [10]; Williams v Powell [1894] WN (Eng) 141; Gramophone Co Ltd v Magazine Holder Co (1911) 28 RPC 221 at 225 227; Termijtelen v Van Arkel [1974] 1 NSWLR 525; Wallersteiner v Moir [1974] 3 All ER 217; Metzger v Department of Health and Social Security [1977] 3 All ER 444 at 451; BMI Ltd v Federated Clerks Union of Australia (NSW) Branch (1983) 51 ALR 401; Young P W, Declaratory Orders (2nd ed, 1984) [601].
Case: Metzger v Department of Health and Social Security [1977] 3 All ER 444
Outcome: cited
As a general principle, a court does not make declarations on matters relating to public rights by consent or on admissions, but only if it is satisfied by evidence: ASIC v Rich (No 2) (2004) 22 ACLC 1232 at [10]; Williams v Powell [1894] WN (Eng) 141; Gramophone Co Ltd v Magazine Holder Co (1911) 28 RPC 221 at 225 227; Termijtelen v Van Arkel [1974] 1 NSWLR 525; Wallersteiner v Moir [1974] 3 All ER 217; Metzger v Department of Health and Social Security [1977] 3 All ER 444 at 451; BMI Ltd v Federated Clerks Union of Australia (NSW) Branch (1983) 51 ALR 401; Young P W, Declaratory Orders (2nd ed, 1984) [601].
Case: NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (1996) 71 FCR 285
Outcome: cited
In my view, it is appropriate for there to be orders in accordance with the minute of proposed orders. The orders are within power and otherwise appropriate: ACCC v Target Australia Pty Ltd [2001] ATPR 41-840 at [24] and ACCC v Econovite Pty Ltd [2003] ATPR 41-959 at [12]. Moreover, in the circumstances, it is in the public interest that these proceedings be settled: see Kiefel J in NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v ACCC (1996) 71 FCR 285 at 291.
Case: Termijtelen v Van Arkel [1974] 1 NSWLR 525
Outcome: cited
As a general principle, a court does not make declarations on matters relating to public rights by consent or on admissions, but only if it is satisfied by evidence: ASIC v Rich (No 2) (2004) 22 ACLC 1232 at [10]; Williams v Powell [1894] WN (Eng) 141; Gramophone Co Ltd v Magazine Holder Co (1911) 28 RPC 221 at 225 227; Termijtelen v Van Arkel [1974] 1 NSWLR 525; Wallersteiner v Moir [1974] 3 All ER 217; Metzger v Department of Health and Social Security [1977] 3 All ER 444 at 451; BMI Ltd v Federated Clerks Union of Australia (NSW) Branch (1983) 51 ALR 401; Young P W, Declaratory Orders (2nd ed, 1984) [601].
Case: Wallersteiner v Moir [1974] 3 All ER 217
Outcome: cited
As a general principle, a court does not make declarations on matters relating to public rights by consent or on admissions, but only if it is satisfied by evidence: ASIC v Rich (No 2) (2004) 22 ACLC 1232 at [10]; Williams v Powell [1894] WN (Eng) 141; Gramophone Co Ltd v Magazine Holder Co (1911) 28 RPC 221 at 225 227; Termijtelen v Van Arkel [1974] 1 NSWLR 525; Wallersteiner v Moir [1974] 3 All ER 217; Metzger v Department of Health and Social Security [1977] 3 All ER 444 at 451; BMI Ltd v Federated Clerks Union of Australia (NSW) Branch (1983) 51 ALR 401; Young P W, Declaratory Orders (2nd ed, 1984) [601].
Case: Williams v Powell [1894] WN (Eng) 141
Outcome: cited
As a general principle, a court does not make declarations on matters relating to public rights by consent or on admissions, but only if it is satisfied by evidence: ASIC v Rich (No 2) (2004) 22 ACLC 1232 at [10]; Williams v Powell [1894] WN (Eng) 141; Gramophone Co Ltd v Magazine Holder Co (1911) 28 RPC 221 at 225 227; Termijtelen v Van Arkel [1974] 1 NSWLR 525; Wallersteiner v Moir [1974] 3 All ER 217; Metzger v Department of Health and Social Security [1977] 3 All ER 444 at 451; BMI Ltd v Federated Clerks Union of Australia (NSW) Branch (1983) 51 ALR 401; Young P W, Declaratory Orders (2nd ed, 1984) [601].
Case: BRGAB of 2007 v MIAC [2007] FMCA 823
Outcome: cited
This is an appeal from a decision of Federal Magistrate Jarrett ( BRGAB of 2007 v MIAC [2007] FMCA 823) in relation to the appellant's application for a Protection (Class XA) Visa ('a protection visa'). Jarrett FM dismissed the application. Subsequently, a Judge of this Court made an order under Order 80 rule 4(1) of the Federal Court Rules ('the Order 80') that the appellant be provided pro bono with legal advice as to her prospects of success in this appeal. The Order 80 stated that, if there were prospects of success, counsel could continue to act generally for the appellant; otherwise the assistance would end. 2 The matter was called on this morning and the appellant has made two applications. The first is an application that I disqualify myself from hearing the matter. The second is an application for adjournment. 3 As to the application that I disqualify myself, the appellant raised four bases.
Case: Colonial Portfolio Services Ltd v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (2000) 11 ANZ Ins Cas 90-103; [1999] FCA 1779
Outcome: applied
the Court's discretion is broad, it is not unfettered, and must be exercised on the evidence and having regard to the objects of the Act, principally, the protection of the interests of policyholders and prospective policyholders (s 3(1) of the Act). See Colonial Portfolio Services Ltd v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (2000) 11 ANZ Ins Cas 90-103; [1999] FCA 1779 at [4] and [29]. There are two aspects to the protection of the interests of policyholders: 1. First, there are the procedural aspects in which the Court is concerned to see that the process undertaken has been properly executed in accordance with the requirements of the Act and the Life Insurance Regulations 1995 (Cth) ('the Regulations'); and 2. Second, there is a substantive aspect in which the Court is concerned to see that the Scheme will not be prejudicial to the interests of policyholders and that policyholders are properly safeguarded, i.e., there is not likely to be any material detriment to policyholders affected by the Scheme (see NuLife Insurance Ltd v Norwich Union Life Australia Ltd [2005] FCA 1635 at [24] per Emmett J; MLC Lifetime Company Ltd &amp; Anor (No. 2) [2006] FCA 1367 at [5] per Bennett J; Colonial Portfolio at [25] per Mathews J)
Case: NuLife Insurance Ltd v Norwich Union Life Australia Ltd [2005] FCA 1635
Outcome: applied
are two aspects to the protection of the interests of policyholders: 1. First, there are the procedural aspects in which the Court is concerned to see that the process undertaken has been properly executed in accordance with the requirements of the Act and the Life Insurance Regulations 1995 (Cth) ('the Regulations'); and 2. Second, there is a substantive aspect in which the Court is concerned to see that the Scheme will not be prejudicial to the interests of policyholders and that policyholders are properly safeguarded, i.e., there is not likely to be any material detriment to policyholders affected by the Scheme (see NuLife Insurance Ltd v Norwich Union Life Australia Ltd [2005] FCA 1635 at [24] per Emmett J; MLC Lifetime Company Ltd &amp; Anor (No. 2) [2006] FCA 1367 at [5] per Bennett J; Colonial Portfolio at [25] per Mathews J)
Case: MLC Lifetime Company Ltd &amp; Anor (No. 2) [2006] FCA 1367
Outcome: applied
are two aspects to the protection of the interests of policyholders: 1. First, there are the procedural aspects in which the Court is concerned to see that the process undertaken has been properly executed in accordance with the requirements of the Act and the Life Insurance Regulations 1995 (Cth) ('the Regulations'); and 2. Second, there is a substantive aspect in which the Court is concerned to see that the Scheme will not be prejudicial to the interests of policyholders and that policyholders are properly safeguarded, i.e., there is not likely to be any material detriment to policyholders affected by the Scheme (see NuLife Insurance Ltd v Norwich Union Life Australia Ltd [2005] FCA 1635 at [24] per Emmett J; MLC Lifetime Company Ltd &amp; Anor (No. 2) [2006] FCA 1367 at [5] per Bennett J; Colonial Portfolio at [25] per Mathews J)
Case: Ward v Western Australia [1999] FCA 580 ; (1999) 93 FCR 305
Outcome: cited
The effect of s 85A was discussed by Lee J in Ward v Western Australia [1999] FCA 580 ; (1999) 93 FCR 305. Lee J's observations were picked up by the Full Court of the Federal Court in De Rose v State of South Australia (No 2) [2005] FCAFC 137. The Court consisted of Wilcox, Sackville and Merkel JJ. Their Honours at par 8 said: 'In Ward v Western Australia [1999] FCA 580 ; (1999) 93 FCR 305, Lee J made the following points about s 85A: &#8226; Section 85A(1) is intended to remove any ground for anticipation or expectation that unless cause is shown for another order, costs will follow the event (at [33]). &#8226; Nonetheless, s 85A acknowledges that the Court has an overriding discretion as to costs and does not expressly impose a limit on the scope of the discretion (at [31]-[32]). &#8226; There is no requirement that a threshold condition be met before the Court is empowered to make a costs order. It follows that the exercise of the discretion is not conditional upon a finding of fact or the formation of an opinion as to the occurrence of unreasonable conduct or the existence of special circumstances (at [35]). &#8226; Section 85A(2) of the NT Act puts beyond doubt the extent of the Court&#180;s discretion in cases where a party acts unreasonably, but s 85A(2) does not control or limit the discretion available to the Court under s 85A(1) (at [36]-[37]). &#8226; The matters to be taken into account in making a costs order are left to the Court&#180;s discretion, which must be exercised judicially. However, the starting point is that each party will bear their own costs unless the Court determines that it is appropriate in the circumstances to make an order for costs (at [34]) .' 13 The court has as general power to make orders for costs as Lee J's comments in Ward illustrate. There is a specific power where the court is satisfied of the matters referred to in subs 85A(2) of the Act. In my opinion those considerations do not apply. 14 Looking at the matter generally, in my judgment, this is not a case where it is appropriate to make any order as to costs. The consequence is that, pursuant to subs 85A(1) of the Act, each party to the Notice of Motion is to bear his or her own costs. 15 For the above reasons I give leave to Shane Coghill to discontinue the notice of motion filed on 8 February 2006, and note that, pursuant to s 85A of the Act, each party to that motion is to bear his or her own costs. I certify that the preceding fifteen (15) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Spender J. Associate: Dated: 6 June 2006 Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr Michael Neal of Michael Neal Lawyers (respondent on notice of motion) There was no appearance for the first respondent. Mr Shane Coghill, the second respondent, applicant on the notice of motion, appeared in person Date of Hearing: 31 May 2006 Date of Judgment: 31 May 2006 AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2006/708.html