Dart v Norwich Union Life Australia Limited [2005] FCA 327

Dart v Norwich Union Life Australia Limited [2005] FCA 327

Because Sydney Ronald Dart had orally applied to Dowsett J for leave to appeal immediately after the interlocutory judgment and Dowsett J had refused leave, the applicants could not renew that application before the Full Court or appeal from the refusal. The renewed notice of motion was therefore incompetent for Sydney Ronald Dart and Frederick William Dart. Shirley Norma Dart was not fixed with the oral application because Mr Dart was not acting for her, but her application was not properly instituted because it did not comply with O 52 r 10.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Judgment / Determination by Single Judge of the Competence of the Applicants' Notice of Motion Filed 12 February 2005
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed; applicants ordered to pay respondents' costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'competence of Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal' 'federal Court Rules O 52 R 10']
['practice and Procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'competence of Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal' 'federal Court Rules O 52 R 10']

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 From an Interlocutory Judgment / Determination by Single Judge of the Competence of the Applicants' Notice of Motion Filed 12 February 2005

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a further application to the Full Court for leave to appeal was competent after an oral application for leave to appeal had been made to and refused by the single judge who pronounced the interlocutory judgment.' 'Whether the notice of motion was properly instituted in respect of Shirley Norma Dart having regard to the filing and service requirements of O 52 r 10 of the Federal Court Rules.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because Sydney Ronald Dart had orally applied to Dowsett J for leave to appeal immediately after the interlocutory judgment and Dowsett J had refused leave, the applicants could not renew that application before the Full Court or appeal from the refusal. The renewed notice of motion was therefore incompetent for Sydney Ronald Dart and Frederick William Dart. Shirley Norma Dart was not fixed with the oral application because Mr Dart was not acting for her, but her application was not properly instituted because it did not comply with O 52 r 10.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed; applicants ordered to pay respondents' costs.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed 12 February 2005 by the applicants is dismissed as incompetent in the case of the two male applicants, and for non-compliance with the requirements of O 52 r 10 of the Federal Court Rules, in respect of the female applicant.' 'The applicants should pay the costs of each of the...