Vescio v Honourable Kristina Keneally [2008] FCA 589

Vescio v Honourable Kristina Keneally [2008] FCA 589

Leave to appeal was refused because the primary judge's decision dismissing for want of jurisdiction was clearly correct, there was no live constitutional issue to require s 78B notices, and there was no basis for the bias allegations. Costs ordered against the applicant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Disposition of Interlocutory Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Decisions' 'jurisdiction' 'bias Allegation' 'constitutional Notice (s 78 B Judiciary Act)' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'constitutional Law' 'criminal Law'] ['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Decisions' 'jurisdiction' 'bias Allegation' 'constitutional Notice (s 78 B Judiciary Act)' '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 to Appeal / Disposition of Interlocutory Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted against interlocutory decision dismissing proceedings for want of jurisdiction' 'Whether any live constitutional issue exists requiring notice under s 78B Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)' 'Whether allegations of bias against primary judge had any basis']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the primary judge's decision dismissing for want of jurisdiction was clearly correct, there was no live constitutional issue to require s 78B notices, and there was no basis for the bias allegations. Costs ordered against the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal, as contained in the Notice of Motion filed on 14 April 2008, be refused.' 'The Applicant to pay the costs of the Respondents of and incidental to the hearing of the application.']