Mijac Investments Pty Ltd v Graham [2014] FCA 366

Mijac Investments Pty Ltd v Graham [2014] FCA 366

The applicant failed to file the written submissions it had been given leave to file, and in any event r 1.21 could not be used to obtain guidance or documents for the purpose of re-opening proceedings and appeals that had already been finalised. Rule 2.25 provided no substantive basis for relief, and once the r...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Orders About Procedures Under R 1.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) / Heard on the Papers; Amended Application Dismissed
Outcome
The claims contained in the applicant's amended application filed on 26 September 2013 were dismissed.
Legal Topics
['federal Court Procedure' 'application for Procedural Orders' 're Opening Proceedings' 'filing Irregularities' 'transfer of Proceedings']
['practice and Procedure'] ['federal Court Procedure' 'application for Procedural Orders' 're Opening Proceedings' 'filing Irregularities' 'transfer of Proceedings']

Source-derived case record

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 Orders About Procedures Under R 1.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) / Heard on the Papers; Amended Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether r 1.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) could be used to obtain orders about procedure after the original proceeding and appeals had been determined.' 'Whether r 2.25 provided a basis for substantive relief concerning a filed application for leave to appeal.' 'Whether there was any proceeding to which the transfer power under r 2.02 could apply.' "Whether the applicant's claims in the amended application filed on 26 September 2013 should be dismissed."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to file the written submissions it had been given leave to file, and in any event r 1.21 could not be used to obtain guidance or documents for the purpose of re-opening proceedings and appeals that had already been finalised. Rule 2.25 provided no substantive basis for relief, and once the r 1.21 application was dismissed there was no proceeding to which r 2.02 transfer powers could apply.

Court Disposition

The claims contained in the applicant's amended application filed on 26 September 2013 were dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The claims contained in the applicant's amended application filed on 26 September 2013 be dismissed." 'The parties have leave to file and serve written submissions as to costs in accordance with the following timetable: (a) the respondents, within 7 days; (b) the applicant, within a further 7 days; (c) the...