Hamod v State of New South Wales [2002] FCAFC 97; [2002] FCA 424

Hamod v State of New South Wales [2002] FCAFC 97; [2002] FCA 424

All judgments identified in the notice of appeal were interlocutory and no leave to appeal had been granted. Katz J had refused an extension of time to seek leave to appeal, and a further application for an extension of time could not be entertained because such an application invoked appellate jurisdiction and repeated applications were not available. The purported notice of appeal therefore did not enliven the Court's appellate jurisdiction and had to be dismissed as incompetent. The appellant's further motions either depended on a valid appeal, attempted to appeal without leave, sought matters inappropriate for the Full Court absent a properly constituted appeal, or sought an order the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal and New Trial; Practice and Procedure / Full Court Determination of Respondents' Motions to Dismiss Purported Appeal as Incompetent and First Appellant's Motion for Adjournment and Other Orders
Outcome
Purported appeal dismissed as incompetent; motions in the notice of motion filed on 15 February 2002 dismissed; costs ordered but indemnity costs refused.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Judgment' 'leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time to Apply for Leave to Appeal' 'incompetent Appeal' 'indemnity Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'appellate Procedure' 'costs'] ['interlocutory Judgment' 'leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time to Apply for Leave to Appeal' 'incompetent Appeal' 'indemnity Costs']

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

Appeal and New Trial; Practice and Procedure / Full Court Determination of Respondents' Motions to Dismiss Purported Appeal as Incompetent and First Appellant's Motion for Adjournment and Other Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the notice of appeal from Conti J's interlocutory judgments brought into existence a valid appeal without leave to appeal." 'Whether a further application could be made to the Full Court to enlarge time to apply for leave to appeal after Katz J had refused an earlier application for an extension of time.' "Whether the first appellant's motions filed on 15 February 2002 should be granted." 'Whether costs should be ordered, including whether indemnity costs were warranted.']

Ratio Decidendi

All judgments identified in the notice of appeal were interlocutory and no leave to appeal had been granted. Katz J had refused an extension of time to seek leave to appeal, and a further application for an extension of time could not be entertained because such an application invoked appellate jurisdiction and repeated applications were not available. The purported notice of appeal therefore did not enliven the Court's appellate jurisdiction and had to be dismissed as incompetent. The appellant's further motions either depended on a valid appeal, attempted to appeal without leave, sought matters inappropriate for the Full Court absent a properly constituted appeal, or sought an order the...

Court Disposition

Purported appeal dismissed as incompetent; motions in the notice of motion filed on 15 February 2002 dismissed; costs ordered but indemnity costs refused.

Orders

  • ['The purported appeal be dismissed as incompetent.' 'The motions the subject of the notice of motion filed on 15 February 2002 be dismissed.' "Anthony Hamod and Hamock Investments Pty Limited pay the respondents' costs of the purported notice of appeal, the notice of motion filed on 25 October 2001 and the notice...