Dai v Michael Roberts Strata Management Services Limited [2000] FCA 680

Dai v Michael Roberts Strata Management Services Limited [2000] FCA 680

The first instance orders dismissing the application were interlocutory because they did not conclude the rights of the parties inter se. Leave to appeal was therefore required. Leave was refused because the decision was not attended with sufficient doubt and no substantial injustice was shown: the appellant's documents disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action in a court of competent jurisdiction and no reasonably arguable basis for invoking the Federal Court's jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia; Respondent's Notice of Motion Seeking Summary Dismissal of the Appeal as Incompetent / Objection to Competency And, If Required, Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Objection to competency upheld; leave to appeal refused, with costs.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory and Final Orders' 'leave to Appeal' 'summary Dismissal' 'competency of Appeal' 'federal Court Jurisdiction']
['civil Procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['interlocutory and Final Orders' 'leave to Appeal' 'summary Dismissal' 'competency of Appeal' 'federal Court Jurisdiction']

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

Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia; Respondent's Notice of Motion Seeking Summary Dismissal of the Appeal as Incompetent / Objection to Competency And, If Required, Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the orders of the single Judge summarily dismissing the principal proceedings were interlocutory or final.' 'Whether leave to appeal was required under s 24(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first instance orders dismissing the application were interlocutory because they did not conclude the rights of the parties inter se. Leave to appeal was therefore required. Leave was refused because the decision was not attended with sufficient doubt and no substantial injustice was shown: the appellant's documents disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action in a court of competent jurisdiction and no reasonably arguable basis for invoking the Federal Court's jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Objection to competency upheld; leave to appeal refused, with costs.

Orders

  • ['Objection to competency is upheld, with costs.' 'Leave to appeal be refused, with costs.']