Dudzinski v Centrelink [2003] FCA 308

Dudzinski v Centrelink [2003] FCA 308

There is no legal basis for an interlocutory order requiring payment of money before determining entitlement; extension of time and leave to appeal are refused because no prospects of success exist and delay was not satisfactorily explained.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion in Civil Proceeding / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Order
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['bias of Judge' 'interlocutory Orders' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal']
['practice and Procedure'] ['bias of Judge' 'interlocutory Orders' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal']

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

Notice of Motion in Civil Proceeding / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the judge ought to be disqualified for actual or apprehended bias' 'Whether an extension of time to appeal should be granted' 'Whether leave to appeal the interlocutory order should be granted' 'Whether an interlocutory order for payment of money can be made prior to determination of entitlement']

Ratio Decidendi

There is no legal basis for an interlocutory order requiring payment of money before determining entitlement; extension of time and leave to appeal are refused because no prospects of success exist and delay was not satisfactorily explained.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion seeking extension of time to appeal is declined and leave to appeal the interlocutory order is refused.' "The applicant is to pay the respondents' costs, to be taxed if not agreed."]