Forestry Tasmania v Brown (No 2) [2007] FCA 604

Forestry Tasmania v Brown (No 2) [2007] FCA 604

Under the new intervention rules, Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 52 Rule 14AA draw an express distinction between interveners and parties, define and limit the intervener's role, and focus trial intervention on assistance in the first instance proceeding. An entity granted leave to intervene on terms under Order 6 Rule 17 is therefore not a "party" for the purposes of Order 52 Rule 14 and is not properly joined as a party to a subsequent appeal merely by reason of that intervention.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal; Motion Concerning Removal of Parties and Leave to Intervene / Application by First Respondent in Appeal, Decided on 13 April 2007
Outcome
Application granted; the Commonwealth and Tasmania were removed as parties to the appeal and granted leave to intervene on terms.
Legal Topics
['intervention' 'joinder of Parties to Appeal' 'federal Court Rules Order 6 Rule 17' 'federal Court Rules Order 52 Rule 14' 'federal Court Rules Order 52 Rule 14 Aa']
['practice and Procedure'] ['intervention' 'joinder of Parties to Appeal' 'federal Court Rules Order 6 Rule 17' 'federal Court Rules Order 52 Rule 14' 'federal Court Rules Order 52 Rule 14 Aa']

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; Motion Concerning Removal of Parties and Leave to Intervene / Application by First Respondent in Appeal, Decided on 13 April 2007

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an entity granted conditional leave to intervene under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Federal Court Rules is a "party to the proceeding in the court appealed from" for the purposes of Order 52 Rule 14.' 'Whether the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Tasmania were properly joined as parties to the appeal or should instead be granted leave to intervene in the appeal on terms.']

Ratio Decidendi

Under the new intervention rules, Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 52 Rule 14AA draw an express distinction between interveners and parties, define and limit the intervener's role, and focus trial intervention on assistance in the first instance proceeding. An entity granted leave to intervene on terms under Order 6 Rule 17 is therefore not a "party" for the purposes of Order 52 Rule 14 and is not properly joined as a party to a subsequent appeal merely by reason of that intervention.

Court Disposition

Application granted; the Commonwealth and Tasmania were removed as parties to the appeal and granted leave to intervene on terms.

Orders

  • ['By consent the Third Respondent be removed as a party to the appeal.' 'The Second Respondent be removed as a party to the appeal.' 'Pursuant to Order 52, Rule 14AA, the Second Respondent, and by consent the Third Respondent, have leave to intervene in the appeal upon the terms that their intervention at the...