Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Kamisha Corp [1999] FCA 1211

Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Kamisha Corp [1999] FCA 1211

Leave to appeal was refused because it was inappropriate on a leave application for the Full Court to construe ex tempore first instance indications to determine whether the entered order reflected them, no request had been made to Heerey J to speak to the form of the order, Equuscorp had not in any real sense been denied natural justice, and any alleged discrepancy could be raised before the docket Judge by seeking variation under O 36 r 7(2).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From an Order of a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia / Motion on Notice for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders Made by Heerey J on 30 July 1999
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Orders' 'accrued Jurisdiction' 'cross Vesting' 'transfer of Proceedings' 'natural Justice' 'variation of Orders']
['federal Court Procedure' 'jurisdiction' 'trade Practices'] ['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Orders' 'accrued Jurisdiction' 'cross Vesting' 'transfer of Proceedings' 'natural Justice' 'variation of Orders']

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 Order of a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia / Motion on Notice for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders Made by Heerey J on 30 July 1999

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to appeal from Heerey J's orders limiting the trial of proceeding VG 610 of 1996 and standing over other claims." 'Whether Equuscorp had been denied natural justice in relation to the form of the orders made on 30 July 1999.' 'Whether any alleged discrepancy between the views indicated on 13 July 1999 and the formal orders entered on 30 July 1999 should be dealt with by appeal or by application to the docket Judge to vary the interlocutory order.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because it was inappropriate on a leave application for the Full Court to construe ex tempore first instance indications to determine whether the entered order reflected them, no request had been made to Heerey J to speak to the form of the order, Equuscorp had not in any real sense been denied natural justice, and any alleged discrepancy could be raised before the docket Judge by seeking variation under O 36 r 7(2).

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['The motion on notice filed on 10 August 1999 for leave to appeal from the order of Heerey J made on 30 July 1999 be refused.' 'The costs of all parties of and incidental to the said motion on notice be reserved to the docket Judge to be made the subject of such orders on the determination of the substantive...