Slater v Slater (No. 2) [2001] FCA 1711

Slater v Slater (No. 2) [2001] FCA 1711

Leave to file the notice of motion was refused and/or the notice of motion was dismissed because there was no sufficient prospect of a different outcome in the appeal, based on the new material presented.

Parties
Appellant/applicant: Merrilee Margaret Slater; First Respondent: Walter Laurence Slater; Second Respondent: Laurence Walter Slater
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Judgment Motion
Outcome
Leave to file notice of motion refused; in the alternative, notice of motion 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Merrilee Margaret Slater

Appellant/applicant

Walter Laurence Slater

First Respondent

Laurence Walter Slater

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Judgment Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to file a notice of motion seeking reconsideration of dismissed appeal
  2. 2 Whether new material in affidavit or oral submissions by Mrs Slater discloses a reasonably arguable case for a different result in appeal A62 of 2000

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to file the notice of motion was refused and/or the notice of motion was dismissed because there was no sufficient prospect of a different outcome in the appeal, based on the new material presented.

Court Disposition

Leave to file notice of motion refused; in the alternative, notice of motion dismissed

Orders

  • If leave to file the notice of motion dated 21 May 2001 is required, then leave is refused.
  • If leave to file the notice of motion date 21 May 2001 is not required, the said notice of motion is dismissed.