Lim v Flinders University of South Australia (No 3) [2023] FCA 618

Lim v Flinders University of South Australia (No 3) [2023] FCA 618

The costs judgment was given in exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction, and it is established that an appeal cannot be brought from a single Judge exercising appellate jurisdiction to a Full Court exercising appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, the application is not competent and must be dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Hazel Lim; First Respondent: Flinders University of South Australia; Second Respondent: Associate Professor Anand Ganesan; Third Respondent: Professor Derek Chew; Fourth Respondent: Steve Waltham; Fifth Respondent: Professor William Heddle; Sixth Respondent: Professor Ross McKinnon
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Determination of Competence and Dismissal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Costs Order, Appellate Jurisdiction, Competence of Application
Practice and Procedure Employment and Industrial Relations Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Costs Order Appellate Jurisdiction Competence of Application

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 5 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hazel Lim

Applicant

Flinders University of South Australia

First Respondent

Associate Professor Anand Ganesan

Second Respondent

Professor Derek Chew

Third Respondent

Steve Waltham

Fourth Respondent

Professor William Heddle

Fifth Respondent

Professor Ross McKinnon

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Determination of Competence and Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for extension of time and leave to appeal is competent where it relates to a costs order made in appellate jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the costs judgment was made in exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The costs judgment was given in exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction, and it is established that an appeal cannot be brought from a single Judge exercising appellate jurisdiction to a Full Court exercising appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, the application is not competent and must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal dated 23 March 2023 be dismissed.
  • Subject to paragraph 3, there be no order as to costs.