Allison v Murphy (No 2) [2021] FCA 1631

Allison v Murphy (No 2) [2021] FCA 1631

It was appropriate to exercise discretion under s 25(2) to direct that the extension of time application and appeal be heard together by a Full Court and to grant expedition, given the applicant’s terminal illness, the significant consequences of the sequestration order, and the interests of justice. Such directions and grants are judicial in character, not administrative, being part of the Court’s business and not subject to ADJR review.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Hearing; Reasons for Direction Under S 25(2) and Expedition
Outcome
Respondent's purported request under s 13 of the ADJR Act dismissed.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'practice and Procedure' 'expedited Hearing' 'sequestration Orders']
['bankruptcy' 'civil Procedure'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'practice and Procedure' 'expedited Hearing' 'sequestration 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Hearing; Reasons for Direction Under S 25(2) and Expedition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a direction under s 25(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) should be made for a Full Court to hear the extension of time application and appeal' 'Whether expedition should be granted for the hearing' "Whether the Court's decision under s 25(2) is administrative or judicial in character"]

Ratio Decidendi

It was appropriate to exercise discretion under s 25(2) to direct that the extension of time application and appeal be heard together by a Full Court and to grant expedition, given the applicant’s terminal illness, the significant consequences of the sequestration order, and the interests of justice. Such directions and grants are judicial in character, not administrative, being part of the Court’s business and not subject to ADJR review.

Court Disposition

Respondent's purported request under s 13 of the ADJR Act dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The respondent's purported request under s 13 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) be dismissed."]