Obeid v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2018] FCA 1713

Obeid v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2018] FCA 1713

Leave to appeal was refused because, although substantial injustice would follow if the primary judge's decision were assumed to be wrong, the applicant did not identify any arguable error and the decision dismissing the suppression order application was not attended by sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration by a Full Court.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From Dismissal of an Interlocutory Application Seeking an Interim Suppression Order / Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs; interim suppression orders ceased to operate forthwith.
Legal Topics
['suppression Order' 'non Publication Order' 'open Justice' 'proper Administration of Justice' 'leave to Appeal' 'criminal Trial Prejudice']
['practice and Procedure'] ['suppression Order' 'non Publication Order' 'open Justice' 'proper Administration of Justice' 'leave to Appeal' 'criminal Trial Prejudice']

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 Dismissal of an Interlocutory Application Seeking an Interim Suppression Order / Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to appeal from the primary judge's dismissal of an application for a further interim suppression order under s 37AF(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)." "Whether the primary judge's decision was attended by sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration on appeal." 'Whether publication of the reasons in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Cascade Coal Pty Ltd (No 3) [2018] FCA 1019 was necessary to be suppressed to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice in light of a pending criminal trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because, although substantial injustice would follow if the primary judge's decision were assumed to be wrong, the applicant did not identify any arguable error and the decision dismissing the suppression order application was not attended by sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration by a Full Court.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs; interim suppression orders ceased to operate forthwith.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application, as agreed or taxed." 'The reasons for judgment in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Cascade Coal Pty Ltd (No 3) [2018] FCA 1019, without redactions, be published forthwith.' 'The...