Priestley v The Honourable David Peter Maxwell Hawker [2009] FCA 169

Priestley v The Honourable David Peter Maxwell Hawker [2009] FCA 169

The application failed because the applicant did not satisfactorily explain the delay in seeking an extension of time after the High Court decision, the proposed grounds of appeal were untenable or had no sufficient prospect of success, there was no sufficient doubt about the primary judge's decision that s 31A and O 20 r 5 were valid, and refusing leave at this interlocutory stage would not cause substantial injustice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for an Extension of Time in Which to Seek Leave to Appeal And, If Granted, Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Judgment / Motion Before a Single Judge of the Federal Court
Outcome
The applicant's adjournment application was dismissed and the application for extension of time and leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment' 'validity of S 31 a of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)' 'validity of O 20 R 5 of the Federal Court Rules' 'summary Dismissal' 'apprehended Bias and Recusal' 'federal Court Sitting Places']
['federal Civil Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'constitutional Law'] ['extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment' 'validity of S 31 a of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)' 'validity of O 20 R 5 of the Federal Court Rules' 'summary Dismissal' 'apprehended Bias and Recusal' 'federal Court Sitting Places']

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 an Extension of Time in Which to Seek Leave to Appeal And, If Granted, Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Judgment / Motion Before a Single Judge of the Federal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's adjournment application should be granted because of alleged late service of the respondents' written submissions." 'Whether the applicant satisfactorily explained his delay in applying for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal.' "Whether the proposed appeal had sufficient prospects or sufficient doubt attending the primary judge's decision to warrant an extension of time and leave to appeal." 'Whether refusal of leave to appeal would cause substantial injustice to the applicant.' 'Whether the primary judge was authorised to deliver judgment in Sydney.' "Whether the applicant's proposed grounds concerning bias, the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), Imperial enactments, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, s 31A and O 20 r 5 were arguable."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because the applicant did not satisfactorily explain the delay in seeking an extension of time after the High Court decision, the proposed grounds of appeal were untenable or had no sufficient prospect of success, there was no sufficient doubt about the primary judge's decision that s 31A and O 20 r 5 were valid, and refusing leave at this interlocutory stage would not cause substantial injustice.

Court Disposition

The applicant's adjournment application was dismissed and the application for extension of time and leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's application for an adjournment is dismissed." 'The application is dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the motion."]