Gersten v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1917

Gersten v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1917

Although the evidence explaining delay was skimpy, it sufficiently explained why leave was not sought earlier, and the proposed grounds challenging serious adverse findings against two legal practitioners could not be characterised as hopeless. The time for seeking leave was therefore extended and leave to appeal granted. The respondents' motions to dismiss the purported appeal were dismissed as moot, but the applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs because the motions correctly identified the fatal deficiency that the interlocutory appeal required leave.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Motion for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Judgment / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment on Motion
Outcome
Time extended and leave to appeal granted; respondents' motions dismissed; applicants ordered to pay respondents' costs of those motions.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'indemnity Costs' 'exempt Documents']
['administrative Law' 'appellate Procedure' 'freedom of Information' 'costs'] ['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'indemnity Costs' 'exempt Documents']

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

Motion for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Judgment / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment on Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether time should be extended for filing and serving a notice of motion seeking leave to appeal from Whitlam J's judgment of 7 July 2000." "Whether leave should be granted to appeal from Whitlam J's interlocutory judgment and costs orders." "Whether the respondents' motions to dismiss the purported appeal as incompetent should be dismissed and what costs orders should be made."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the evidence explaining delay was skimpy, it sufficiently explained why leave was not sought earlier, and the proposed grounds challenging serious adverse findings against two legal practitioners could not be characterised as hopeless. The time for seeking leave was therefore extended and leave to appeal granted. The respondents' motions to dismiss the purported appeal were dismissed as moot, but the applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs because the motions correctly identified the fatal deficiency that the interlocutory appeal required leave.

Court Disposition

Time extended and leave to appeal granted; respondents' motions dismissed; applicants ordered to pay respondents' costs of those motions.

Orders

  • ['The time for filing and service of a notice of motion seeking leave to appeal from the judgment of Whitlam J of 7 July 2000 be extended to 6 December 2000.' 'Leave be granted to Mr Gersten and Mr Lee to appeal from the judgment of Whitlam J of 7 July 2000.' 'The appellants file and serve an amended notice of...