Hogan v Australian Crime Commission [2009] FCA 761

Hogan v Australian Crime Commission [2009] FCA 761

A stay should issue because, if no stay were made, the subject matter of the litigation would be destroyed by removal of the protection afforded by the s 50 confidentiality order; the proposed special leave application had prospects that could not be characterised as not insubstantial, particularly in light of a reasoned dissent in the Full Court and the possible engagement of s 35A(b) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth); and the balance of convenience, despite competing public interests, justified preserving the position pending special leave.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Orders Pending Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court of Australia / Federal Court of Australia Single Judge Decision After Full Court Judgment
Outcome
Stay granted.
Legal Topics
['stay of Orders' 'special Leave to Appeal to the High Court of Australia' 'confidentiality Orders' 'balance of Convenience' 'prospects of Success']
['practice and Procedure'] ['stay of Orders' 'special Leave to Appeal to the High Court of Australia' 'confidentiality Orders' 'balance of Convenience' 'prospects of Success']

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 Stay of Orders Pending Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court of Australia / Federal Court of Australia Single Judge Decision After Full Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether orders of the Full Court and related orders should be stayed pending an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.' 'Whether the prospects of the special leave application were not insubstantial.' 'Whether the subject matter of the litigation would be destroyed if a stay were not granted.' 'Whether the balance of convenience supported granting a stay.']

Ratio Decidendi

A stay should issue because, if no stay were made, the subject matter of the litigation would be destroyed by removal of the protection afforded by the s 50 confidentiality order; the proposed special leave application had prospects that could not be characterised as not insubstantial, particularly in light of a reasoned dissent in the Full Court and the possible engagement of s 35A(b) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth); and the balance of convenience, despite competing public interests, justified preserving the position pending special leave.

Court Disposition

Stay granted.

Orders

  • ['Order 4 made by his Honour Foster J on 12 September 2008 is vacated.' 'Order 1 made by Emmett J on 29 August 2008 insofar as that order vacates Order 4 made by Emmett J on 1 August 2008 be stayed: (a) In the first instance for 21 days; and (b) If an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of...