<P> In Australian law ex parte is used in two senses . The predominant use is to refer to an ex parte hearing, being one which is heard in the absence of one or more parties . Where proceedings are heard ex parte, a high degree of candour is required, including full and fair disclosure of facts adverse to the moving party . A failure to make such disclosure is ordinarily sufficient to warrant discharge of such order as might be made . </P> <P> The other use means' on the application of' when used in the case name where prerogative relief is sought, such as a writ of prohibition, certiorari or mandamus . Thus for example the case name in the Boilermakers' case is R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia as the case concerned a writ of prohibition that was sought against Kirby, Dunphy and Ashburner, who were judges of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, on the application of the Boilermakers Society of Australia . While the case name is' ex parte' it was not heard in the absence of a party, with the judges being represented by DI Menzies QC who also represented the Commonwealth Attorney - General . Similarly the case of Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally concerned application of McNally for a writ of prohibition in relation to proceedings in the Federal Court that were commenced by Wakim . Both McNally and Wakim appeared in the High Court . There was however no appearance for the first respondents in the bankruptcy cases, the judges of the Federal Court . </P>

When can a court validly conduct a hearing ex parte