Gao v Fair Work Ombudsman [2013] FCA 754

Gao v Fair Work Ombudsman [2013] FCA 754

The orders made by Tracey J were interlocutory, and applicant required but had been refused leave to appeal; as such, the appeal had no prospect of success, justifying dismissal of the extension application.

Parties
Applicant: PENG GAO; Respondent: FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal / Decision on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application for extension of time to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Appeal, Interlocutory Judgments, Leave to Appeal, Costs
Practice and Procedure Extension of Time to Appeal Interlocutory Judgments Leave to Appeal Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENG GAO

Applicant

FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal / Decision on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for extension of time to appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the judgment appealed from was interlocutory and leave to appeal is required
  3. 3 Whether applicant has a reasonable prospect of success on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The orders made by Tracey J were interlocutory, and applicant required but had been refused leave to appeal; as such, the appeal had no prospect of success, justifying dismissal of the extension application.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant's application for an extension of time to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the respondent's costs of that application.