Skyring v Australian Electoral Commissioner [1999] FCA 113

Skyring v Australian Electoral Commissioner [1999] FCA 113

The orders of Dowsett J on 23 October 1998 did not determine substantive rights, no valid basis had been shown for excluding the respondent's counsel or the Commissioner from being heard, the decision was not attended with sufficient doubt, and no substantial injustice would result if leave were refused. The application for leave for an extension of time within which to appeal was therefore refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave for an Extension of Time Within Which to Appeal From an Interlocutory Judgment / Full Court Application
Outcome
Application for leave for an extension of time within which to appeal refused, with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'abuse of Process' 'vexatious Proceedings' 'costs']
['administrative Law' 'electoral Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'abuse of Process' 'vexatious Proceedings' 'costs']

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 for an Extension of Time Within Which to Appeal From an Interlocutory Judgment / Full Court Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave for an extension of time within which to appeal from Dowsett J's interlocutory orders of 23 October 1998 should be granted." "Whether the primary judge's decision dismissing Mr Skyring's motion to prevent counsel for the respondent and the Australian Electoral Commissioner from being heard was attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration by the Full Court." "Whether substantial injustice would result if leave were refused, supposing the primary judge's decision to be wrong."]

Ratio Decidendi

The orders of Dowsett J on 23 October 1998 did not determine substantive rights, no valid basis had been shown for excluding the respondent's counsel or the Commissioner from being heard, the decision was not attended with sufficient doubt, and no substantial injustice would result if leave were refused. The application for leave for an extension of time within which to appeal was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave for an extension of time within which to appeal refused, with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave for an extension of time within which to appeal is refused.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application, to be taxed if not agreed."]