CSL Australia Pty Ltd v Minister for Infrastructure and Transport (No 2) [2012] FCA 1181

CSL Australia Pty Ltd v Minister for Infrastructure and Transport (No 2) [2012] FCA 1181

It was not necessary or appropriate to grant further time or fix the proposed date in order to do justice between the parties. If the earlier interlocutory order affected the final orders, any error could be corrected on appeal from the final orders; if it did not, it operated only in relation to an event already passed and no longer affected the applicant's rights or interests. The imminence of the final hearing and possible costs consequences did not alter that conclusion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Application Under R 35.13(b) of the Federal Court Rules Fixing a Date for Filing an Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Judgment / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
The applicant's interlocutory application dated 19 October 2012 was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment' 'extension or Fixing of Time' 'interlocutory Orders' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'appeals'] ['leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment' 'extension or Fixing of Time' 'interlocutory Orders' '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

Practice and Procedure; Application Under R 35.13(b) of the Federal Court Rules Fixing a Date for Filing an Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Judgment / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a date should be fixed under r 35.13(b) of the Federal Court Rules for filing an application for leave to appeal from the interlocutory judgment of 12 October 2012.' 'Whether the interlocutory orders would affect the final orders or only operated in relation to an event already passed.']

Ratio Decidendi

It was not necessary or appropriate to grant further time or fix the proposed date in order to do justice between the parties. If the earlier interlocutory order affected the final orders, any error could be corrected on appeal from the final orders; if it did not, it operated only in relation to an event already passed and no longer affected the applicant's rights or interests. The imminence of the final hearing and possible costs consequences did not alter that conclusion.

Court Disposition

The applicant's interlocutory application dated 19 October 2012 was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's interlocutory application dated 19 October 2012 be dismissed." "The applicant pay the second respondent's costs in respect of that interlocutory application." "There be no order as to the first respondent's costs in respect of that interlocutory application." "Orders 3 and 5 dated 12 October 2012...