Bagshaw v Jefferson & Stevenson [2002] FCAFC 27; [2002] FCA 147

Bagshaw v Jefferson & Stevenson [2002] FCAFC 27; [2002] FCA 147

Leave to appeal was refused because, even if the primary judge's decision were wrong, no substantial injustice would result since the applicant could make a further application for transfer. The order concerned practice and procedure, the proceeding had been difficult to case manage, and the Full Court was not satisfied that the primary judge committed any error in exercising his discretion to proceed peremptorily and dismiss the motion when the applicant did not prosecute it.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia / Full Court Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interlocutory Orders Dismissing a Notice of Motion to Transfer the Proceeding to the New South Wales Registry
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Orders' 'transfer of Proceedings' 'practice and Procedure' 'case Management']
['federal Civil Procedure' 'bankruptcy'] ['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Orders' 'transfer of Proceedings' 'practice and Procedure' 'case Management']

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 From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia / Full Court Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interlocutory Orders Dismissing a Notice of Motion to Transfer the Proceeding to the New South Wales Registry

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal was required for an interlocutory order dismissing a notice of motion to transfer the proceeding to another registry.' 'Whether the decision was attended by sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration by the Full Court.' 'Whether substantial injustice would result if leave to appeal were refused.' 'Whether the primary judge erred in refusing to adjourn the motion and dismissing it when the applicant was not prepared to proceed.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because, even if the primary judge's decision were wrong, no substantial injustice would result since the applicant could make a further application for transfer. The order concerned practice and procedure, the proceeding had been difficult to case manage, and the Full Court was not satisfied that the primary judge committed any error in exercising his discretion to proceed peremptorily and dismiss the motion when the applicant did not prosecute it.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal be dismissed with costs.']