Southern Migrant and Refugee Centre Inc v Shum (No 2) [2021] FCA 1005

Southern Migrant and Refugee Centre Inc v Shum (No 2) [2021] FCA 1005

Neither application advanced by Ms Shum was worthy of success: the fresh evidence sought to be admitted was either available at trial or not relevant, and the appeal book content had already been definitively settled by the registrar and previously dismissed in a similar application.

Parties
First Appellant / First Cross Respondent: Southern Migrant and Refugee Centre Inc; Second Appellant / Second Cross Respondent: Brian Oates; Third Appellant / Third Cross Respondent: Travis Heeney; Fourth Cross Respondent: Despina Haralambopoulos; Fifth Cross Respondent: Champa Wattegamage; Sixth Cross Respondent: Aman Bindra; Respondent / Cross Appellant: Lai Shum
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal / Interlocutory Applications Pending Hearing of Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Both interlocutory applications by the respondent/cross appellant dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Practice and Procedure, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Appeal Book Content
Employment and Industrial Relations Practice and Procedure Fresh Evidence on Appeal Appeal Book Content

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Southern Migrant and Refugee Centre Inc

First Appellant / First Cross Respondent

Brian Oates

Second Appellant / Second Cross Respondent

Travis Heeney

Third Appellant / Third Cross Respondent

Despina Haralambopoulos

Fourth Cross Respondent

Champa Wattegamage

Fifth Cross Respondent

Aman Bindra

Sixth Cross Respondent

Lai Shum

Respondent / Cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Cross Appeal / Interlocutory Applications Pending Hearing of Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should admit further evidence on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the appeal book content should be revisited

Ratio Decidendi

Neither application advanced by Ms Shum was worthy of success: the fresh evidence sought to be admitted was either available at trial or not relevant, and the appeal book content had already been definitively settled by the registrar and previously dismissed in a similar application.

Court Disposition

Both interlocutory applications by the respondent/cross appellant dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The respondent's interlocutory application dated 28 July 2021 be dismissed.
  • The respondent's interlocutory application dated 31 July 2021 be dismissed.