Stergiou, Stan & Anor v Reid, John Ross & Ors [1996] FCA 544

Stergiou, Stan & Anor v Reid, John Ross & Ors [1996] FCA 544

The order of Master Hogan entering judgment for the third respondent on a summary judgment application was final, so under s.9(2)(b) of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (A.C.T.) an appeal from that order lay only to a Full Court of the Supreme Court and not to a single Judge. Higgins J. therefore acted without jurisdiction in dismissing the appeal from that final order. The interlocutory restraint order involved discretionary practice and procedure concerning abuse of process, and no exceptional circumstance or point of principle justified leave to appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 1996
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory / Appeal Concerning Orders Made in Favour of the Third Respondent, Including Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders and Appeal as of Right From a Final Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; leave to appeal refused in part; relevant final order of Higgins J. set aside and remitted to a Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory; no order as to costs in the present connection.
Legal Topics
['appeals From Orders of a Master' 'interlocutory and Final Orders' 'summary Judgment' 'inherent Jurisdiction to Restrain Abuse of Process' 'leave to Appeal']
['practice and Procedure' 'appellate Jurisdiction'] ['appeals From Orders of a Master' 'interlocutory and Final Orders' 'summary Judgment' 'inherent Jurisdiction to Restrain Abuse of Process' 'leave to Appeal']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory / Appeal Concerning Orders Made in Favour of the Third Respondent, Including Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders and Appeal as of Right From a Final Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted from interlocutory orders restraining the appellants from commencing further action against the third respondent without leave and declining to accept an amended statement of claim.' 'Whether the order entering summary judgment for the third respondent was final in character.' 'Whether a single Judge of the Supreme Court had jurisdiction under s.9(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (A.C.T.) to hear an appeal from a final order of the Master.' 'Whether mixed orders of a Master could be treated distributively as interlocutory in some respects and final in others.']

Ratio Decidendi

The order of Master Hogan entering judgment for the third respondent on a summary judgment application was final, so under s.9(2)(b) of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (A.C.T.) an appeal from that order lay only to a Full Court of the Supreme Court and not to a single Judge. Higgins J. therefore acted without jurisdiction in dismissing the appeal from that final order. The interlocutory restraint order involved discretionary practice and procedure concerning abuse of process, and no exceptional circumstance or point of principle justified leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; leave to appeal refused in part; relevant final order of Higgins J. set aside and remitted to a Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory; no order as to costs in the present connection.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal against the order of the Supreme Court restraining the appellants from commencing any further action against the third respondent, without the leave of that Court, be refused.' 'The order of Higgins J. dismissing the appeal against the order of Master Hogan be set aside, so far as that order...