Rana v Goldney (No 2) [2008] FCA 1553

Rana v Goldney (No 2) [2008] FCA 1553

The application for extension of time to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal had no arguable prospect of success, as the proceeding was a substantially identical abuse of process to the previously dismissed action, and there was no error in the primary judge’s assessment.

Parties
Applicant: Ranjit Shamsher Jung Bahadur Rana; First Respondent: Professor Robert Goldney; Second Respondent: University of Adelaide; Third Respondent: Andrew Schatz; Fourth Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor; Fifth Respondent: Repatriation Commission; Sixth Respondent: Chief of Army; Seventh Respondent: Commonwealth of Australia; Eighth Respondent: Greg Camilos
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Final Decision on Application
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Extension of Time to Appeal, Procedural Fairness
Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Extension of Time to Appeal Procedural Fairness

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ranjit Shamsher Jung Bahadur Rana

Applicant

Professor Robert Goldney

First Respondent

University of Adelaide

Second Respondent

Andrew Schatz

Third Respondent

Australian Government Solicitor

Fourth Respondent

Repatriation Commission

Fifth Respondent

Chief of Army

Sixth Respondent

Commonwealth of Australia

Seventh Respondent

Greg Camilos

Eighth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Final Decision on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to appeal from the summary dismissal of his action
  2. 2 Whether the proposed appeal has any arguable prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the original proceeding and the proposed appeal are an abuse of the process of the Court

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal had no arguable prospect of success, as the proceeding was a substantially identical abuse of process to the previously dismissed action, and there was no error in the primary judge’s assessment.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • The application for an extension of time within which to appeal from the decision of the Court made on 3 April 2008 is refused.