L v Commonwealth of Australia [2009] FCA 4

L v Commonwealth of Australia [2009] FCA 4

Leave to appeal was refused because the decision below was interlocutory and required leave, the Federal Magistrate correctly concluded that certain respondents were not respondents to the terminated Commission complaint, and no reviewable error was shown in the discretionary refusal to extend time where the applicant's allegations did not disclose an arguable case. The proposed appeal would be futile or bound to fail.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Decision of Cameron FM Refusing Leave to Commence Proceedings Out of Time and Refusing Joinder of the New South Wales Guardianship Tribunal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Decision' 'extension of Time' 'human Rights Complaint Termination' 'joinder' 'security for Costs']
['administrative Law' 'human Rights and Discrimination' 'civil Procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Decision' 'extension of Time' 'human Rights Complaint Termination' 'joinder' 'security for Costs']

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 Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Decision of Cameron FM Refusing Leave to Commence Proceedings Out of Time and Refusing Joinder of the New South Wales Guardianship Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Cameron FM's decision was interlocutory so that leave to appeal was required under s 24(1A) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)." 'Whether the proposed appeal concerning respondents who were not respondents to the terminated Commission complaint would be futile.' "Whether there was any reviewable error in the Federal Magistrate's refusal to grant an extension of time to commence proceedings under s 46PO(2) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth)." 'Whether the applicant had an arguable case against the remaining respondents sufficient to justify leave to proceed out of time.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the decision below was interlocutory and required leave, the Federal Magistrate correctly concluded that certain respondents were not respondents to the terminated Commission complaint, and no reviewable error was shown in the discretionary refusal to extend time where the applicant's allegations did not disclose an arguable case. The proposed appeal would be futile or bound to fail.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal be refused.' 'The application be dismissed with costs.']