All Districts Coating Pty Ltd v Barhoum [2008] FCA 1525

All Districts Coating Pty Ltd v Barhoum [2008] FCA 1525

The orders appealed from did not finally dispose of all issues between the parties as the issues of compensation and reinstatement were unresolved; therefore the orders were interlocutory in nature and no leave to appeal was sought. The appeal was thus incompetent and must be dismissed.

Parties
First Appellant: All Districts Coating Pty Ltd; Second Appellant: All Districts Coating (Aust) Pty Ltd; Third Appellant: Carlos Habibeh; Fourth Appellant: Rita Habibeh; Respondent: Ead Barhoum
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Interlocutory Competence of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as incompetent; costs awarded to the respondent from 8 May 2008.
Legal Topics
Appeals, Interlocutory Orders, Jurisdiction, Federal Court Procedure, Costs
Practice and Procedure Appeals Interlocutory Orders Jurisdiction Federal Court Procedure 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

All Districts Coating Pty Ltd

First Appellant

All Districts Coating (Aust) Pty Ltd

Second Appellant

Carlos Habibeh

Third Appellant

Rita Habibeh

Fourth Appellant

Ead Barhoum

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Interlocutory Competence of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the orders appealed from were interlocutory or final in nature
  2. 2 Whether the appeal was competent in absence of leave

Ratio Decidendi

The orders appealed from did not finally dispose of all issues between the parties as the issues of compensation and reinstatement were unresolved; therefore the orders were interlocutory in nature and no leave to appeal was sought. The appeal was thus incompetent and must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as incompetent; costs awarded to the respondent from 8 May 2008.

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed as incompetent.
  • The appellants pay the respondent's costs on and from 8 May 2008.