Cabal v United Mexican States (No 3) [2000] FCA 340

Cabal v United Mexican States (No 3) [2000] FCA 340

The Court determined that the ruling on admissibility of evidence in the bail application should remain a ruling and not be converted to a formal order, as the issues addressed were appropriately dealt with in the context of a part-heard bail motion and no separate question was set aside for separate determination.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Bail / Motion Filed; Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence and Procedural Orders
Outcome
Application to convert ruling to formal order refused; costs ordered against applicants.
Legal Topics
['bail Application' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'converting Rulings to Orders']
['criminal Law' 'extradition' 'procedural Law'] ['bail Application' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'converting Rulings to Orders']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Bail / Motion Filed; Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence and Procedural Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a ruling on admissibility of evidence should be converted into a formal order' 'Scope of admissible evidence in bail application']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court determined that the ruling on admissibility of evidence in the bail application should remain a ruling and not be converted to a formal order, as the issues addressed were appropriately dealt with in the context of a part-heard bail motion and no separate question was set aside for separate determination.

Court Disposition

Application to convert ruling to formal order refused; costs ordered against applicants.

Orders

  • ["The first respondent's costs of the hearing are to be paid by the applicants."]