Kumar v Secretary, Department of Social Services (No 2) [2019] FCA 203

Kumar v Secretary, Department of Social Services (No 2) [2019] FCA 203

Leave to appeal is refused because the proposed grounds are devoid of merit; it is not arguable that Director-General of Social Services v Chaney was wrongly decided, and the impugned order is interlocutory in nature, requiring leave which is not justified on the facts.

Parties
Applicant: Nitesh Kumar; First Respondent: Secretary, Department of Social Services; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Determination of Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Competency of Appeal, Interlocutory Orders
Administrative Law Practice and Procedure Leave to Appeal Competency of Appeal Interlocutory Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nitesh Kumar

Applicant

Secretary, Department of Social Services

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Determination of Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against an order dismissing an appeal as incompetent
  2. 2 Whether there is an arguable ground that Director-General of Social Services v Chaney (1980) 47 FLR 80 was wrongly decided

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal is refused because the proposed grounds are devoid of merit; it is not arguable that Director-General of Social Services v Chaney was wrongly decided, and the impugned order is interlocutory in nature, requiring leave which is not justified on the facts.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal be refused.
  • The applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal, to be taxed if not agreed.