Brodel v Farnsworth [2004] FCA 736

Brodel v Farnsworth [2004] FCA 736

The proposed appeal had no prospect of success because Farnsworth made the statutory declaration solely as an officer, employee or agent of Telstra and not in his own interest, the applicant had been told early that the wrong respondent had been selected, and there was no basis to suggest Finkelstein J's costs discretion miscarried; therefore an extension of time or leave to appeal was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time Within Which to Appeal; Application for Leave to Appeal / Federal Court Application Before Ryan J From Order of Finkelstein J Dated 1 August 2003
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'proper Respondent' 'costs Discretion' 'statutory Declaration Under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (cth)']
['civil Procedure' 'trade Marks'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'proper Respondent' 'costs Discretion' 'statutory Declaration Under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (cth)']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time Within Which to Appeal; Application for Leave to Appeal / Federal Court Application Before Ryan J From Order of Finkelstein J Dated 1 August 2003

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended for the applicant to appeal from the order of Finkelstein J dated 1 August 2003.' 'Whether the proposed appeal against the substantive order had any prospect of success where the respondent made the statutory declaration only as an officer, employee or agent of Telstra.' "Whether there was any basis to disturb Finkelstein J's costs order against the applicant."]

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed appeal had no prospect of success because Farnsworth made the statutory declaration solely as an officer, employee or agent of Telstra and not in his own interest, the applicant had been told early that the wrong respondent had been selected, and there was no basis to suggest Finkelstein J's costs discretion miscarried; therefore an extension of time or leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal is refused.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application, to be taxed in default of agreement."]