Croker v Philips Electronics Australia Ltd [2002] FCA 1454

Croker v Philips Electronics Australia Ltd [2002] FCA 1454

Given unsettled legal questions as to whether a direction under O 46 r 7A is appealable, the matter should be referred to a Full Court for determination.

Parties
Applicant: Clayton Robert Croker; First Respondent: Philips Electronics Australia Limited; Second Respondent: Dick Smith's Electronics Pty Limited; Third Respondent: Telstra Corporation Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Referral to Full Court
Outcome
Hearing of the motion referred to a Full Court; costs reserved

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clayton Robert Croker

Applicant

Philips Electronics Australia Limited

First Respondent

Dick Smith's Electronics Pty Limited

Second Respondent

Telstra Corporation Limited

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Referral to Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a direction pursuant to O 46 r 7A of the Federal Court Rules is a judgment or order from which an appeal lies
  2. 2 Appropriateness of leave to appeal from a direction given by a judge to the registrar under O 46 r 7A

Ratio Decidendi

Given unsettled legal questions as to whether a direction under O 46 r 7A is appealable, the matter should be referred to a Full Court for determination.

Court Disposition

Hearing of the motion referred to a Full Court; costs reserved

Orders

  • Hearing of the motion is referred to a Full Court.
  • Recommendation that the motion be heard together with Bizuneh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs, N1113 of 2002.