Buttigieg v Australian Communications and Media Authority [2023] FCA 959

Buttigieg v Australian Communications and Media Authority [2023] FCA 959

Leave to appeal was refused because Mr Buttigieg failed to demonstrate any arguable basis that the primary judge's discretionary decision on a matter of practice and procedure miscarried. The concise statement identified the alleged conduct said to make him accessorily liable, any deficiency could be cured by particulars, and Mr Buttigieg had previously opposed a move to pleadings and had not sought further particulars.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment / Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'concise Statement' 'statement of Claim' 'procedural Fairness' 'interactive Gambling' 'pecuniary Penalties']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative and Regulatory Law' 'commercial and Corporations'] ['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'concise Statement' 'statement of Claim' 'procedural Fairness' 'interactive Gambling' 'pecuniary Penalties']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment / Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to appeal from an interlocutory judgment refusing to strike out the ACMA's concise statement and require a statement of claim." "Whether the primary judge's exercise of discretion on a matter of practice and procedure was attended by sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration by a Full Court." 'Whether the concise statement gave Mr Buttigieg adequate notice of the case against him and avoided procedural unfairness.' 'Whether any deficiency in the concise statement could be addressed by particulars.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because Mr Buttigieg failed to demonstrate any arguable basis that the primary judge's discretionary decision on a matter of practice and procedure miscarried. The concise statement identified the alleged conduct said to make him accessorily liable, any deficiency could be cured by particulars, and Mr Buttigieg had previously opposed a move to pleadings and had not sought further particulars.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.' "The applicant for leave to appeal pay the first respondent's costs of the application."]