Wride v Schulze [2004] FCAFC 216

Wride v Schulze [2004] FCAFC 216

Leave to appeal was refused because Lander J's orders were interlocutory, the amended statements of claim failed to comply with pleading requirements and failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action, the applicant had had time and opportunity to plead his case but there was no prospect of a proper pleading being achieved, and no error was shown in Lander J's assessment; accordingly there was no utility in granting leave to appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Applications for Leave to Appeal / Full Court Hearing of Applications for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decisions Striking Out Amended Statements of Claim and Dismissing Applications
Outcome
Each application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'self Represented Litigant' 'federal Court Jurisdiction']
['practice and Procedure' 'appellate Procedure' 'pleadings' 'summary Dismissal' 'patents'] ['leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'self Represented Litigant' '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

Applications for Leave to Appeal / Full Court Hearing of Applications for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decisions Striking Out Amended Statements of Claim and Dismissing Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the orders of Lander J striking out the amended statements of claim and dismissing the applications were interlocutory and therefore required leave to appeal.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted where the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.' 'Whether there was any utility in granting leave to appeal from the interlocutory decisions.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because Lander J's orders were interlocutory, the amended statements of claim failed to comply with pleading requirements and failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action, the applicant had had time and opportunity to plead his case but there was no prospect of a proper pleading being achieved, and no error was shown in Lander J's assessment; accordingly there was no utility in granting leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Each application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Each application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.']