Luck v Chief Executive Officer, Centrelink [2009] FCAFC 54

Luck v Chief Executive Officer, Centrelink [2009] FCAFC 54

The appeal was incompetent because the orders appealed from were interlocutory, leave to appeal was required and was not sought within the required period, no satisfactory explanation for delay or special reasons for extension of time were provided, and the appeal and associated motions presented no reasonable prospects of success. There was no evidence supporting the claims of bias or procedural unfairness.

Parties
Appellant: Gaye Alexandra Luck; First Respondent: Chief Executive Officer, Centrelink; Second Respondent: Secretary of Department of Human Services
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment of Full Court on Competence of Appeal and Procedural Motions
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as incompetent with costs
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Orders, Extension of Time, Disability Discrimination, Procedural Fairness, Apprehended Bias
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Discrimination Law Judicial Review Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders Extension of Time Disability Discrimination +2 more

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gaye Alexandra Luck

Appellant

Chief Executive Officer, Centrelink

First Respondent

Secretary of Department of Human Services

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment of Full Court on Competence of Appeal and Procedural Motions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the orders appealed from were interlocutory and required leave to appeal
  2. 2 Whether an extension of time to seek leave to appeal should be granted
  3. 3 Whether there was apprehended bias or procedural unfairness justifying disqualification of judges

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was incompetent because the orders appealed from were interlocutory, leave to appeal was required and was not sought within the required period, no satisfactory explanation for delay or special reasons for extension of time were provided, and the appeal and associated motions presented no reasonable prospects of success. There was no evidence supporting the claims of bias or procedural unfairness.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as incompetent with costs

Orders

  • The motion seeking further time to make submissions and an adjournment of the hearing be dismissed.
  • The motion seeking orders of the Full Court for the disqualification of certain judges be dismissed as incompetent, with no order as to costs.