Heilbronn, Greig Ronald v Australian Securities Commission [1997] FCA 1209

Heilbronn, Greig Ronald v Australian Securities Commission [1997] FCA 1209

The application before Drummond J was an application for an extension of time within which to institute an appeal under s 25(2)(b), so from beginning to end it was a proceeding in the appellate jurisdiction of the Court. Because the Full Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a single judge exercising that appellate jurisdiction, the purported appeal was incompetent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 November 1997
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Dismissal of an Application for Extension of Time Within Which to Appeal / Full Court Determining Whether the Purported Appeal From a Single Judge Was Competent
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as incompetent; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'competence of Appeal' 'single Judge Exercising Appellate Jurisdiction' 'federal Court Appellate Jurisdiction']
['practice and Procedure' 'appellate Jurisdiction' 'corporations'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'competence of Appeal' 'single Judge Exercising Appellate Jurisdiction' 'federal Court Appellate 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

Appeal Concerning Dismissal of an Application for Extension of Time Within Which to Appeal / Full Court Determining Whether the Purported Appeal From a Single Judge Was Competent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an appeal lies to the Full Court against a decision of a single judge dealing with an application for an extension of time within which to appeal under s 25(2)(b) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).' 'Whether the making of directions or an order dismissing the proceeding under O 10 r 7 indicated that the single judge was exercising original rather than appellate jurisdiction.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application before Drummond J was an application for an extension of time within which to institute an appeal under s 25(2)(b), so from beginning to end it was a proceeding in the appellate jurisdiction of the Court. Because the Full Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a single judge exercising that appellate jurisdiction, the purported appeal was incompetent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as incompetent; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed as being incompetent.' 'There is no order as to costs.']