Wu v DSMJ Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 661
The discretion to have an appeal heard by a Full Court is not engaged merely due to lack of binding precedent, potential impact on a large number, or procedural fairness allegations involving a lower court, as none of these factors in the present case justify departure from the normal rule of appeals being heard by a single judge.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 17 June 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Interlocutory Application in Appeal
- Outcome
- Prayer 2 of the Interlocutory Application dismissed; costs of today reserved.
- Legal Topics
- ['practice and Procedure' 'appeals' 'federal Court Procedure' 'reasonableness of Additional Hours Under Fair Work Act' 'statutory Construction']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Application in Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether appeal should be heard by Full Court or single judge' 'Criteria for exercising discretion under Federal Court of Australia Act s 25(1AA)' 'Application of Fair Work Act s 62(3) regarding reasonable additional hours']
Ratio Decidendi
The discretion to have an appeal heard by a Full Court is not engaged merely due to lack of binding precedent, potential impact on a large number, or procedural fairness allegations involving a lower court, as none of these factors in the present case justify departure from the normal rule of appeals being heard by a single judge.
Court Disposition
Prayer 2 of the Interlocutory Application dismissed; costs of today reserved.
Orders
- ['Prayer 2 of the Interlocutory Application filed on 19 May 2024 be dismissed.' 'Costs of today be reserved.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment