Ogawa v President of the Australian Human Rights Commission [2022] FCA 1396

Ogawa v President of the Australian Human Rights Commission [2022] FCA 1396

Leave to appeal was refused because the decision of the primary judge was not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration and substantial injustice would not result if leave were refused. The issue of suppression had already been determined by the Full Court; there was no automatic entitlement to an interim suppression order; and the applicant’s identity was already revealed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Determination of Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['interim Suppression Orders' 'federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth) S 37 Ai' 'leave to Appeal' 'procedural Fairness']
['practice and Procedure'] ['interim Suppression Orders' 'federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth) S 37 Ai' 'leave to Appeal' 'procedural Fairness']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal / Determination of Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the decision to be appealed is attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration on appeal' 'Whether substantial injustice would result if leave were refused' 'Whether interim suppression order should have been granted under s 37AI of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the decision of the primary judge was not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration and substantial injustice would not result if leave were refused. The issue of suppression had already been determined by the Full Court; there was no automatic entitlement to an interim suppression order; and the applicant’s identity was already revealed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal filed on 21 October 2022 is dismissed.' "The applicant is to pay the second respondent's costs as agreed or taxed."]