Cristovao v Trott [2019] FCA 360

Cristovao v Trott [2019] FCA 360

The application was dismissed because the proceeding was an appeal, not a relevant trial, so r 30.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) did not provide a basis for determining separate questions; no authority or proper basis was identified for a case stated; no purpose would be served by the requested orders; and the suggested recusal grounds were rejected.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal; Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Application in Appeal Management Seeking Orders Pursuant to R 30.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth)
Outcome
Interlocutory application dismissed; appeal listed and programmed for hearing before a Full Court.
Legal Topics
['non Appearance' 'appeal Programming Orders' 'separate Questions' 'case Stated' 'recusal']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights'] ['non Appearance' 'appeal Programming Orders' 'separate Questions' 'case Stated' 'recusal']

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

Procedural Posture

Appeal; Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Application in Appeal Management Seeking Orders Pursuant to R 30.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the judge should recuse himself because he had been a member of a Full Court that previously reached a conclusion adverse to the appellant.' 'Whether the judge should recuse himself because of an alleged membership of the Law Society of Western Australia.' 'Whether r 30.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) provided a basis for orders seeking determination of separate questions or a case stated in the appeal.' "Whether the appellant's interlocutory application should be dismissed despite his non-appearance."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the proceeding was an appeal, not a relevant trial, so r 30.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) did not provide a basis for determining separate questions; no authority or proper basis was identified for a case stated; no purpose would be served by the requested orders; and the suggested recusal grounds were rejected.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application dismissed; appeal listed and programmed for hearing before a Full Court.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be listed for hearing before a Full Court in Perth on 28 May 2018 at 10:15am.' 'The hearing be listed for an estimate of half (½) a day.' 'In accordance with Practice Note APP2, not later than 4.00 pm 20 business days before the hearing of the appeal, the appellant must file his outline of submissions...