Ogawa v Secretary of the Department of Education, Science & Training [2006] FCA 214

Ogawa v Secretary of the Department of Education, Science & Training [2006] FCA 214

The notice of appeal and supplementary notice of appeal were incompetent because the supplementary notice merely challenged findings without particulars, disclosed no question of law, and articulated no basis for error of fact or law. The appellant had not provided evidence justifying an adjournment, so the Court proceeded in her absence and dismissed the appeal pursuant to Order 52 rule 18.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Hearing of Respondents' Notice of Objection to Competency
Outcome
Notice of appeal and supplementary notice of appeal dismissed; appellant ordered to pay the respondents' costs.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'competency of Appeal' 'grounds of Appeal' 'adjournment' 'costs']
['administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['judicial Review' 'competency of Appeal' 'grounds of Appeal' 'adjournment' '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 / Hearing of Respondents' Notice of Objection to Competency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the notice of appeal and supplementary notice of appeal disclosed proper grounds of appeal or a question of law sufficient to make the appeal competent.' "Whether the hearing should proceed in the appellant's absence after she advised she was unwell but provided no medical certificate."]

Ratio Decidendi

The notice of appeal and supplementary notice of appeal were incompetent because the supplementary notice merely challenged findings without particulars, disclosed no question of law, and articulated no basis for error of fact or law. The appellant had not provided evidence justifying an adjournment, so the Court proceeded in her absence and dismissed the appeal pursuant to Order 52 rule 18.

Court Disposition

Notice of appeal and supplementary notice of appeal dismissed; appellant ordered to pay the respondents' costs.

Orders

  • ['The notice of appeal filed on 7 November 2005 and the supplementary notice of appeal filed electronically on 20 February 2006 be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the respondents' costs, of and incidental to the appeal, including any reserved costs."]