Barghouthi v ING Custodians Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1272

Barghouthi v ING Custodians Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1272

The notice of appeal did not disclose any sufficiently particularised question of law, and primarily raised matters of fact or mixed fact and law. Consequently, paragraphs 2 and following of the notice of appeal were struck out, with leave given to the applicant to replead as against the first and second respondents, subject to proper particularisation of questions of law.

Parties
Applicant: Ramzi Barghouthi; First Respondent: ING Custodians Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: ING Life Limited; Third Respondent: Plestel Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal on Question of Law / Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal
Outcome
Notice of appeal struck out; leave to replead; applicant's notice of motion dismissed; directions for further hearing on costs.
Legal Topics
Tribunal Appeals, Jurisdiction of Federal Court, Questions of Law Versus Fact, Superannuation Complaints, Interpretation of Insurance Policy
Administrative Law Superannuation Law Insurance Law Tribunal Appeals Jurisdiction of Federal Court Questions of Law Versus Fact Superannuation Complaints Interpretation of Insurance Policy

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 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramzi Barghouthi

Applicant

ING Custodians Pty Ltd

First Respondent

ING Life Limited

Second Respondent

Plestel Pty Limited

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal on Question of Law / Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether notice of appeal discloses a question of law
  2. 2 Whether errors or questions of law are sufficiently particularised
  3. 3 Scope of Federal Court jurisdiction in superannuation complaints

Ratio Decidendi

The notice of appeal did not disclose any sufficiently particularised question of law, and primarily raised matters of fact or mixed fact and law. Consequently, paragraphs 2 and following of the notice of appeal were struck out, with leave given to the applicant to replead as against the first and second respondents, subject to proper particularisation of questions of law.

Court Disposition

Notice of appeal struck out; leave to replead; applicant's notice of motion dismissed; directions for further hearing on costs.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 2 and following of the notice of appeal filed on 31 May 2002 be struck out.
  • Applicant given leave to replead the notice of appeal as against the first and second respondents, any such further pleading to be annexed to a notice of motion, notice of motion to be filed and served on or before 5 December 2003.