Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd v. Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union & Ors [1986] FCA 316

Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd v. Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union & Ors [1986] FCA 316

Leave to appeal was refused because the refusal of an adjournment was a discretionary decision, Morling J. had considered and carefully weighed the relevant matters, including convenience, delay, justice and the possible effect of findings in the collateral proceedings, and it was extremely unlikely that his conclusion would be overturned. The related competency application failed because the one-day time deficiency did not invalidate the leave application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 1986
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Order Refusing an Adjournment; Related Application to Dismiss the Leave Application as Incompetent / Full Court Reasons Delivered After Applications Heard on 4 June 1986
Outcome
Both applications were dismissed, with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Order' 'adjournment' 'judicial Discretion' 'section 45 D Trade Practices Act 1974' 'issue Estoppel' 'collateral Attack on Judgment']
['practice and Procedure' 'trade Practices'] ['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Order' 'adjournment' 'judicial Discretion' 'section 45 D Trade Practices Act 1974' 'issue Estoppel' 'collateral Attack on Judgment']

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 Order Refusing an Adjournment; Related Application to Dismiss the Leave Application as Incompetent / Full Court Reasons Delivered After Applications Heard on 4 June 1986

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to appeal from Morling J.'s refusal to adjourn the damages claim pending determination of separate proceedings VG36 attacking earlier orders as procured by fraudulent evidence." "Whether possible findings by Morling J. about Mr. Pendarvis's evidence and any consequential issue estoppel justified adjourning the damages claim." "Whether a one-day deficiency in the time between filing and return date made the union's application for leave to appeal incompetent."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the refusal of an adjournment was a discretionary decision, Morling J. had considered and carefully weighed the relevant matters, including convenience, delay, justice and the possible effect of findings in the collateral proceedings, and it was extremely unlikely that his conclusion would be overturned. The related competency application failed because the one-day time deficiency did not invalidate the leave application.

Court Disposition

Both applications were dismissed, with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal was refused.' "Mudginberri's application to dismiss the union's application as incompetent was dismissed." 'Both applications were dismissed with costs.']