Soh v Commonwealth of Australia [2009] FCA 32

Soh v Commonwealth of Australia [2009] FCA 32

The Court had jurisdiction to consider the application because Moore J's contingent self-executing order did not exhaust the appellate jurisdiction and time could be extended in relation to such an order. However, although the delay was not great and was explained, the security for costs decision was not attended by sufficient doubt, no substantial injustice was shown, and no error of principle, fact or relevant consideration was identified in Moore J's discretionary decision. Leave to appeal and an extension of time were therefore refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders for Security for Costs and Contingent Dismissal / Application Dismissed With Costs
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'security for Costs' 'self Executing Orders' 'appellate Jurisdiction' 'discretionary Judgments']
['practice and Procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'security for Costs' 'self Executing Orders' 'appellate Jurisdiction' 'discretionary Judgments']

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

Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders for Security for Costs and Contingent Dismissal / Application Dismissed With Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a contingent self-executing order requiring security for costs and dismissing the appeal on non-compliance exhausted the appellate jurisdiction of the Court.' 'Whether the Court had power to extend time and grant leave after the time for compliance with the security for costs order expired.' 'Whether leave to appeal from the interlocutory security for costs order should be granted.' 'Whether the applicant should receive an extension of time to seek leave to appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court had jurisdiction to consider the application because Moore J's contingent self-executing order did not exhaust the appellate jurisdiction and time could be extended in relation to such an order. However, although the delay was not great and was explained, the security for costs decision was not attended by sufficient doubt, no substantial injustice was shown, and no error of principle, fact or relevant consideration was identified in Moore J's discretionary decision. Leave to appeal and an extension of time were therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed with costs.']