Jones v Thomson [2017] FCA 125
Leave to appeal is refused because the primary judge's construction of r 2.06(2) was correct: it refers to the date fixed for the final hearing, not the first court date; respondents were not in default and no substantial injustice would result from refusal of leave.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 20 February 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['leave to Appeal' 'summary Judgment' 'compliance With Bankruptcy Rules' 'default Judgment Procedures']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether respondents failed to comply with r 2.06(2) of the Federal Circuit Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2006 (Cth)' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted against dismissal of summary judgment application' "Whether the first court date constituted 'the date fixed for the hearing of the application' under the rules" 'Whether substantial injustice would result from refusing leave to appeal']
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal is refused because the primary judge's construction of r 2.06(2) was correct: it refers to the date fixed for the final hearing, not the first court date; respondents were not in default and no substantial injustice would result from refusal of leave.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- ['Leave to appeal is refused and the application is dismissed.' "The applicant must pay the respondents' costs as agreed or taxed."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment