Scott Russell Constructions Pty Limited (in liq), in the matter of Scott Russell Constructions Pty Limited (in liq) v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2020] FCA 26

Scott Russell Constructions Pty Limited (in liq), in the matter of Scott Russell Constructions Pty Limited (in liq) v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2020] FCA 26

Because the matter before Greenwood J was heard by a single judge pursuant to s 20(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), neither s 20(3)(a) nor, consequently, s 24(1AA)(a) applied. The applicants therefore properly sought leave to appeal under s 24(1A).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Orders made; the application for leave to appeal was treated as competent and the application for leave to appeal and the appeal were ordered to be heard concurrently in the August 2020 sittings of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia.
Legal Topics
['competency of Application for Leave to Appeal' 'federal Court Appellate Jurisdiction' 'leave to Appeal' 'case Management Orders']
['practice and Procedure' 'commercial and Corporations' 'regulator and Consumer Protection'] ['competency of Application for Leave to Appeal' 'federal Court Appellate Jurisdiction' 'leave to Appeal' 'case Management 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 Leave to Appeal / Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether ss 24(1AA)(a) and 20(3)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) had any effect on the competency of the application for leave to appeal.' 'Whether the applicants properly sought leave to appeal under s 24(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the matter before Greenwood J was heard by a single judge pursuant to s 20(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), neither s 20(3)(a) nor, consequently, s 24(1AA)(a) applied. The applicants therefore properly sought leave to appeal under s 24(1A).

Court Disposition

Orders made; the application for leave to appeal was treated as competent and the application for leave to appeal and the appeal were ordered to be heard concurrently in the August 2020 sittings of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to ss 23 and 37P of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and rr 1.32 and 1.36 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), these orders and the reasons for judgment in support of these orders are made and published from Chambers.' 'By close of business on 28 January 2020, the Second Applicant is to...