Australian Securities Commission v Solomon [1996] FCA 850

Australian Securities Commission v Solomon [1996] FCA 850

There was no basis to find error in the decision below, as the primary judge was entitled to rely on uncontradicted evidence and there was no prospect of an appeal succeeding; leave to appeal was refused.

Parties
Applicant: Australian Securities Commission; First Respondent: Emad Kamel Solomon; Second Respondent: Transphere (South Pacific) Pty. Limited; Third Respondent: The Eddie Solomon Emporium Pty. Limited; Fourth Respondent: Hot Cakes Pty. Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 September 1996
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / On Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed

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 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Securities Commission

Applicant

Emad Kamel Solomon

First Respondent

Transphere (South Pacific) Pty. Limited

Second Respondent

The Eddie Solomon Emporium Pty. Limited

Third Respondent

Hot Cakes Pty. Limited

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / On Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal from an interlocutory order should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

There was no basis to find error in the decision below, as the primary judge was entitled to rely on uncontradicted evidence and there was no prospect of an appeal succeeding; leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The respondents' application for leave to appeal be dismissed
  • The applicant's costs of the said application be paid by the respondents