Rossmick No 1 Pty Ltd v Bank of Queensland Limited [2008] FCA 482

Rossmick No 1 Pty Ltd v Bank of Queensland Limited [2008] FCA 482

Leave to appeal was granted because the proposed appeal was important and it was at least arguable that the applicants had been denied the right to be heard on the strike out questions and that Greenwood J was wrong to treat the independent contractor issue as simply a matter of construction rather than one involving factual matters concerning the totality of the relationship. Costs were reduced to 80 per cent because of the applicants' late abandonment of the proposed cross-vesting appeal ground.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From the Judgment of Greenwood J on 12 March 2008 in QUD 227 of 2007
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; respondents ordered to pay 80 per cent of the applicants' costs of the application for leave to appeal.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'procedural Fairness' 'cross Vesting' 'independent Contractor Relationship']
['civil Procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['leave to Appeal' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'procedural Fairness' 'cross Vesting' 'independent Contractor Relationship']

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 / Leave to Appeal From the Judgment of Greenwood J on 12 March 2008 in QUD 227 of 2007

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the judgment of Greenwood J.' 'Whether it was arguable that the applicants were denied the right to be heard in respect of strike out questions.' 'Whether it was arguable that the conclusion that the independent contractor question was simply a matter of construction of the agreements was wrong.' 'Whether costs should be modified because the applicants abandoned a proposed cross-vesting ground shortly before the hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was granted because the proposed appeal was important and it was at least arguable that the applicants had been denied the right to be heard on the strike out questions and that Greenwood J was wrong to treat the independent contractor issue as simply a matter of construction rather than one involving factual matters concerning the totality of the relationship. Costs were reduced to 80 per cent because of the applicants' late abandonment of the proposed cross-vesting appeal ground.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; respondents ordered to pay 80 per cent of the applicants' costs of the application for leave to appeal.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal from the judgment of Greenwood J on 12 March 2008 in QUD 227 of 2007 is granted.' 'The appeal be based on grounds 1 to 4 of the Amended Draft Notice of Appeal.' "The respondents pay 80 per cent of the applicants' costs of the application for leave to appeal."]