Rahman v Dayeh [2007] FCA 786

Rahman v Dayeh [2007] FCA 786

Leave and extensions of time were refused because the applicant did not demonstrate legal error in the interlocutory recusal decision, provided no additional basis for recusal, and did not identify any arguable appealable error in the final judgment; any appeal would therefore be futile and the delay was not adequately explained.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Applications for Leave to Appeal and for Extensions of Time / Determined Without an Oral Hearing
Outcome
Applications refused; applicant ordered to pay respondents' costs assessed at $1800.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'recusal' 'apprehended Bias' 'review of Public Service Employment Decision']
['civil Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'employment Law'] ['leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'recusal' 'apprehended Bias' 'review of Public Service Employment Decision']

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

Applications for Leave to Appeal and for Extensions of Time / Determined Without an Oral Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave to appeal and an extension of time should be granted in relation to Smith FM's interlocutory refusal to recuse himself." "Whether an extension of time should be granted to appeal from Smith FM's final judgment dismissing the applicant's application for review of a recommendation not to employ him in an Australian Public Service Level 4 position." 'Whether the proposed appeals disclosed any legal or appealable error such that leave or an extension of time would be justified.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave and extensions of time were refused because the applicant did not demonstrate legal error in the interlocutory recusal decision, provided no additional basis for recusal, and did not identify any arguable appealable error in the final judgment; any appeal would therefore be futile and the delay was not adequately explained.

Court Disposition

Applications refused; applicant ordered to pay respondents' costs assessed at $1800.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal and for an extension of time in NSD 460 of 2007 be refused.' 'The application for an extension of time in NSD 461 of 2007 be refused.' "The applicant pay the respondents' costs assessed in the sum of $1800."]