Dunstan v Orr [2007] FCA 873

Dunstan v Orr [2007] FCA 873

Leave to appeal was refused because the challenged interlocutory rulings were matters of practice or procedure that did not finally determine any legal right or issue against Mr Dunstan, and there was no sufficiently arguable basis to doubt the rulings or to conclude that substantial injustice would result if leave were refused. The subpoena orders disposed of the issue concerning Ms Holland and Ms Benson; the proposed claim against the Commonwealth was an independent and confused cause of action more appropriately brought separately; O 11 r 7 did not assist because an application is not a pleading; and the privileged documents were privileged on their face, with no waiver established by...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interlocutory Decisions in Proceedings Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) and the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth). / Leave to Appeal Against Interlocutory Rulings Refused.
Outcome
The application for leave to appeal is refused, with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decisions' 'joinder of Parties' 'amendment of Proceedings' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'subpoenas' 'judicial Review']
['administrative Law' 'civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decisions' 'joinder of Parties' 'amendment of Proceedings' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'subpoenas' 'judicial Review']

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 Against Interlocutory Decisions in Proceedings Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) and the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth). / Leave to Appeal Against Interlocutory Rulings Refused.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to appeal against the refusal to join Ms Holland, Ms Benson and the Commonwealth of Australia as additional respondents.' 'Whether leave should be granted to appeal against the refusal to permit amendment to add a breach of contract cause of action against the Commonwealth of Australia.' 'Whether O 11 r 7 of the Federal Court Rules permitted the applicant to amend his application without leave.' 'Whether leave should be granted to appeal against the ruling upholding claims of legal professional privilege over documents.' "Whether reference to legal advice in Mr Higham's affidavit and the annexed letter amounted to waiver of privilege."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the challenged interlocutory rulings were matters of practice or procedure that did not finally determine any legal right or issue against Mr Dunstan, and there was no sufficiently arguable basis to doubt the rulings or to conclude that substantial injustice would result if leave were refused. The subpoena orders disposed of the issue concerning Ms Holland and Ms Benson; the proposed claim against the Commonwealth was an independent and confused cause of action more appropriately brought separately; O 11 r 7 did not assist because an application is not a pleading; and the privileged documents were privileged on their face, with no waiver established by...

Court Disposition

The application for leave to appeal is refused, with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal is refused.' 'The applicant for leave to appeal pay the costs of the respondent to be taxed, if not agreed.']