McIlwain v Ramsey Food Packaging Pty Ltd (No. 3) [2006] FCA 994

McIlwain v Ramsey Food Packaging Pty Ltd (No. 3) [2006] FCA 994

The stay was refused because, rather than halting the proceeding pending the respondents' leave application, the remaining issues should be heard and resolved so that final dispositive orders could be made, enabling any appeal to bring the whole controversy before the Court in its appellate jurisdiction.

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure: Application for a Stay Pending an Application for Leave to Appeal / Notice of Motion by the Respondents Filed on 20 July 2006, After Reasons Had Been Published and Before Final Dispositive Orders
Outcome
The respondents' application for a stay was dismissed and costs were reserved.
Legal Topics
['stay of Proceedings Pending Application for Leave to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'final Dispositive Orders' 'penalties Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)' 'declarations and Compensation']
['practice and Procedure' 'workplace Relations'] ['stay of Proceedings Pending Application for Leave to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'final Dispositive Orders' 'penalties Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)' 'declarations and Compensation']

Source-derived case record

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure: Application for a Stay Pending an Application for Leave to Appeal / Notice of Motion by the Respondents Filed on 20 July 2006, After Reasons Had Been Published and Before Final Dispositive Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether further proceedings in QUD66 of 2003 should be stayed until the respondents' application for leave to appeal and any appeal arising from the grant of leave are finally determined." 'Whether the remaining matters in the proceeding should instead be completed so that dispositive orders can be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was refused because, rather than halting the proceeding pending the respondents' leave application, the remaining issues should be heard and resolved so that final dispositive orders could be made, enabling any appeal to bring the whole controversy before the Court in its appellate jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

The respondents' application for a stay was dismissed and costs were reserved.

Orders

  • ['The application made by each of the respondents for a stay of any further hearing of the proceeding made by notice of motion filed on 20 July 2006 is dismissed.' 'The costs of the application are reserved.' 'The respondents shall file in the court and serve upon the applicant any further affidavit material upon...