Saffari v Latitude Financial Services Australia Holdings Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 6

Saffari v Latitude Financial Services Australia Holdings Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 6

The judgment and orders of the primary judge were interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal, and the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable grounds for leave. The claims advanced by the applicant were misconceived or not supported by sufficient pleaded facts or law, and in the absence of merit, the applications for extension of time and leave to appeal must be dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Shahriar Saffari; First Respondent: Latitude Financial Services Australia Holdings Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: DXC Technologies Australia Holdings Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: CrowdStrike Australia Pty Ltd; Fourth Respondent: Latitude Finance Australia Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory Application Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Interlocutory applications dismissed; applicant to pay respondents' costs.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Orders, Summary Dismissal, Joinder of Parties, Costs
Practice and Procedure Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders Summary Dismissal Joinder of Parties Costs

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 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shahriar Saffari

Applicant

Latitude Financial Services Australia Holdings Pty Ltd

First Respondent

DXC Technologies Australia Holdings Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

CrowdStrike Australia Pty Ltd

Third Respondent

Latitude Finance Australia Pty Ltd

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory Application Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal is required from an interlocutory judgment dismissing the proceeding under r 5.23(1)(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated any merit in the proposed grounds of appeal
  3. 3 Whether extension of time and leave to appeal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The judgment and orders of the primary judge were interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal, and the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable grounds for leave. The claims advanced by the applicant were misconceived or not supported by sufficient pleaded facts or law, and in the absence of merit, the applications for extension of time and leave to appeal must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory applications dismissed; applicant to pay respondents' costs.

Orders

  • The interlocutory application filed by the applicant on 23 August 2024 be dismissed.
  • The interlocutory application filed by the applicant on 2 July 2024 be dismissed.