Chan & Naylor Norwest Pty Ltd v CNIP Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1203

Chan & Naylor Norwest Pty Ltd v CNIP Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1203

The application for leave to appeal should be heard and determined by a Full Court due to substantial overlap between the leave question and the substance of the appeal, and because there is no appeal from a single judge's decision on leave. The extension of the interim stay orders was refused as there was insufficient evidence to warrant a further stay.

Parties
First Applicant: Chan & Naylor Norwest Pty Ltd ACN 126 573 475; Second Applicant: Salvatore Arcuri; First Respondent: CNIP Pty Ltd ACN 122 763 240; Second Respondent: Chan & Naylor Australia Pty Ltd ACN 117 031 348
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Extension of Interim Stay Orders / Interlocutory Application; Judgment on Procedural Matters
Outcome
Application for extension of interim stay refused. Application for leave to appeal referred to Full Court. Costs to be costs in the appeal.
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Interim Stay Orders, Federal Court Procedure
Practice and Procedure Leave to Appeal Interim Stay Orders Federal Court Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chan & Naylor Norwest Pty Ltd ACN 126 573 475

First Applicant

Salvatore Arcuri

Second Applicant

CNIP Pty Ltd ACN 122 763 240

First Respondent

Chan & Naylor Australia Pty Ltd ACN 117 031 348

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal and Extension of Interim Stay Orders / Interlocutory Application; Judgment on Procedural Matters

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal should be referred to a Full Court under s 25(2)(e) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976
  2. 2 Whether the interim stay of Perram J’s orders 1 to 8 should be extended pending the hearing of the leave application

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal should be heard and determined by a Full Court due to substantial overlap between the leave question and the substance of the appeal, and because there is no appeal from a single judge's decision on leave. The extension of the interim stay orders was refused as there was insufficient evidence to warrant a further stay.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of interim stay refused. Application for leave to appeal referred to Full Court. Costs to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • Pursuant to s 25(2)(e) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, the application for leave to appeal be heard and determined by a Full Court.
  • Subject to any contrary direction by the Full Court, the application for leave to appeal be heard concurrently with or immediately before any appeal.