Jones v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2010] FCA 481

Jones v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2010] FCA 481

Leave to appeal was refused because the orders of Logan J were within the Court's powers under s 80 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, informed by the reasoning in Foster. The application's grounds did not raise sufficient doubt about the correctness of the original decision, nor would substantial injustice result if leave were refused. The application for extension of time was also refused as the appeal had no prospects of success, and no special reasons unrelated to delay were demonstrated.

Parties
Applicant: Darryl Peter Jones; Respondent: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, and Stay of Orders Pending Appeal / Decision on Notice of Motion
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed; leave to appeal and extension of time refused; application for stay dismissed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Appeal, Leave to Appeal, Interim Injunctions, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Ultra Vires Orders
Practice and Procedure Trade Practices Extension of Time to Appeal Leave to Appeal Interim Injunctions Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Ultra Vires Orders

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Darryl Peter Jones

Applicant

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, and Stay of Orders Pending Appeal / Decision on Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted from interlocutory orders
  2. 2 Whether the orders were ultra vires the Trade Practices Act 1974 or the Constitution
  3. 3 Whether an extension of time to appeal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the orders of Logan J were within the Court's powers under s 80 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, informed by the reasoning in Foster. The application's grounds did not raise sufficient doubt about the correctness of the original decision, nor would substantial injustice result if leave were refused. The application for extension of time was also refused as the appeal had no prospects of success, and no special reasons unrelated to delay were demonstrated.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed; leave to appeal and extension of time refused; application for stay dismissed.

Orders

  • The notice of motion filed 9 April 2010 by Darryl Peter Jones be dismissed.