Saraceni v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2012] FCA 899

Saraceni v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2012] FCA 899

The leave application should be heard by the Full Court because the proposed appeal raised issues of substance, novelty, complexity and potential general significance concerning ASIC authorisations and examination summonses, not merely an interlocutory squabble or practice and procedure matter; the application could not confidently be characterised as hopeless; and the efficient and appropriate course was for the Full Court to hear the leave application concurrently with, or immediately before, the appeal if leave were granted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Determined on the Papers; Application for Leave to Appeal Referred to the Full Court
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal referred to the Full Court; procedural directions made by consent.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'referral to Full Court' 'summary Dismissal Under S 31 A' 'judicial Review of ASIC Authorisations' 'eligible Applicant Status for Examination Orders' 'procedural Fairness']
['appeal' 'federal Court Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'corporations Law'] ['leave to Appeal' 'referral to Full Court' 'summary Dismissal Under S 31 A' 'judicial Review of ASIC Authorisations' 'eligible Applicant Status for Examination Orders' 'procedural Fairness']

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 / Determined on the Papers; Application for Leave to Appeal Referred to the Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the application for leave to appeal should be heard and determined by a single judge or by the Full Court.' 'Whether the issues raised by the proposed appeal were novel, important, complex or of general significance rather than a minor interlocutory squabble or matter of practice and procedure.' 'Whether the application for leave to appeal or proposed appeal was hopeless or unarguable.' 'Whether efficiency and cost effectiveness favoured referring the leave application to the Full Court to be heard with or immediately before the appeal if leave were granted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The leave application should be heard by the Full Court because the proposed appeal raised issues of substance, novelty, complexity and potential general significance concerning ASIC authorisations and examination summonses, not merely an interlocutory squabble or practice and procedure matter; the application could not confidently be characterised as hopeless; and the efficient and appropriate course was for the Full Court to hear the leave application concurrently with, or immediately before, the appeal if leave were granted.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal referred to the Full Court; procedural directions made by consent.

Orders

  • ['The Application for Leave to Appeal be heard by a Full Court of this Court.' 'Subject to any contrary direction of the Full Court, the Application for Leave to Appeal to be heard concurrently with or, alternatively, immediately before the appeal described in the Notice of Appeal to be filed in accordance with...