Kennedy v Secretary, Department of Industry [2016] FCA 1251

Kennedy v Secretary, Department of Industry [2016] FCA 1251

The application for an extension of time was refused because granting it would be futile: the applicant failed to identify any arguable ground showing that the interlocutory judgment was attended with sufficient doubt, and failed to show any substantial injustice if leave were refused. The five proposed grounds lacked merit: the 18 April 2016 application did not have to be determined before judgment and was itself without merit; the transcript showed procedural fairness; the asserted confidential information did not have the necessary quality of confidence; the challenge to the finding that the restraint application should have been made earlier did not undermine independent reasons for...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Judgment / Application Dismissed
Outcome
The applicant's application for an extension of time and leave to appeal was dismissed with costs, and a suppression order was made for Exhibit A5.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Appeal' 'case Management' 'procedural Fairness' 'confidential Information' 'restraining a Law Firm From Acting' 'subpoenas' 'suppression Orders']
['administrative Law' 'practice and Procedure' 'employment and Industrial Relations'] ['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Appeal' 'case Management' 'procedural Fairness' 'confidential Information' 'restraining a Law Firm From Acting' 'subpoenas' 'suppression Orders']

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

Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Judgment / Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to seek leave to appeal from interlocutory orders of the case management judge.' 'Whether the proposed appeal had reasonable prospects of success sufficient to warrant leave to appeal.' 'Whether the case management judge denied the applicant procedural fairness at the 12 April 2016 hearing.' 'Whether the case management judge erred in refusing to restrain Ashurst Australia from continuing to act for the first respondent.' 'Whether information communicated by the applicant to an Associate of the Fair Work Commission was confidential information.' 'Whether suppression orders should be made in relation to Exhibit A5.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an extension of time was refused because granting it would be futile: the applicant failed to identify any arguable ground showing that the interlocutory judgment was attended with sufficient doubt, and failed to show any substantial injustice if leave were refused. The five proposed grounds lacked merit: the 18 April 2016 application did not have to be determined before judgment and was itself without merit; the transcript showed procedural fairness; the asserted confidential information did not have the necessary quality of confidence; the challenge to the finding that the restraint application should have been made earlier did not undermine independent reasons for...

Court Disposition

The applicant's application for an extension of time and leave to appeal was dismissed with costs, and a suppression order was made for Exhibit A5.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's application for an extension of time and leave to appeal be dismissed." 'Pursuant to s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), until further order, and in order to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, Exhibit A5 not be available or open for inspection or removal...