Anying Group Pty Limited v Wang [2012] FCA 702

Anying Group Pty Limited v Wang [2012] FCA 702

Appeal was dismissed because appellants failed to comply with directions and rules, specifically by not obtaining leave to appeal required for interlocutory orders and not attending the hearing, after being given opportunities to rectify deficiencies.

Parties
First Appellant: Anying Group Pty Limited (ACN 126 282 657); Second Appellant: Yanyan Sun; Third Appellant: Yun Chen; First Respondent: Hua Wei Wang; Second Respondent: Xinying Pty Ltd (ACN 118 548 977); Third Respondent: New Century 2001 Pty Ltd trading as Anying Sydney Company (ACN 114 661 568)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Interlocutory Application; Judgment on Motion to Dismiss Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Appeals, Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Versus Final Orders, Dismissal of Appeal, Non Compliance With Rules, Failure to Prosecute Appeal
Practice and Procedure Appeals Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Versus Final Orders Dismissal of Appeal Non Compliance With Rules Failure to Prosecute Appeal

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 6 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anying Group Pty Limited (ACN 126 282 657)

First Appellant

Yanyan Sun

Second Appellant

Yun Chen

Third Appellant

Hua Wei Wang

First Respondent

Xinying Pty Ltd (ACN 118 548 977)

Second Respondent

New Century 2001 Pty Ltd trading as Anying Sydney Company (ACN 114 661 568)

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Interlocutory Application; Judgment on Motion to Dismiss Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether leave to appeal was required
  2. 2 whether the orders were interlocutory or final
  3. 3 whether appeal should be dismissed for failure to comply with Rules and failure to attend hearing

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal was dismissed because appellants failed to comply with directions and rules, specifically by not obtaining leave to appeal required for interlocutory orders and not attending the hearing, after being given opportunities to rectify deficiencies.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Notice of Appeal as filed on 6 December 2011 is dismissed.
  • Appellants are to pay the costs of the Respondents including the costs of the present Interlocutory Application and such other costs as may have been incurred in respect to the appeal.