Bahonko v Sterjov [2007] FCA 1555

Bahonko v Sterjov [2007] FCA 1555

Leave to appeal from Goldberg J's refusal to stay the Substantive Orders was refused because the interlocutory decision was not attended with sufficient doubt and no substantial injustice would result from refusing leave; the stay sought was without utility or inappropriate because the Substantive Orders and Costs Orders had already been made and were themselves the subject of appeal. Leave to amend the Notice of Appeal was refused because the proposed inclusion of Goldberg J's orders depended on leave to appeal that had been refused, and directions by Jessup J and Finkelstein J to a Registrar under O 46 r 7A were not appealable judgments.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders and for Leave to Amend Notice of Appeal / Notice of Motion Heard by a Single Judge and Dismissed
Outcome
The notice of motion as amended on 8 October 2007 was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'amendment of Notice of Appeal' 'directions to Registrar Under O 46 R 7 A' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'federal Court Appellate Procedure' 'employment Law' 'discrimination Law'] ['leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'amendment of Notice of Appeal' 'directions to Registrar Under O 46 R 7 A' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders and for Leave to Amend Notice of Appeal / Notice of Motion Heard by a Single Judge and Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to appeal Goldberg J's interlocutory orders refusing a stay of the Substantive Orders." 'Whether the refusal of a stay was attended by sufficient doubt and whether substantial injustice would result if leave to appeal were refused.' 'Whether the applicant should be given access to the transcript of the hearing before Goldberg J.' "Whether the applicant should have leave to amend the Notice of Appeal to include Goldberg J's orders and directions by Jessup J and Finkelstein J to a Registrar under O 46 r 7A of the Federal Court Rules." 'Whether an injunction or stay should be granted in the alternative.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal from Goldberg J's refusal to stay the Substantive Orders was refused because the interlocutory decision was not attended with sufficient doubt and no substantial injustice would result from refusing leave; the stay sought was without utility or inappropriate because the Substantive Orders and Costs Orders had already been made and were themselves the subject of appeal. Leave to amend the Notice of Appeal was refused because the proposed inclusion of Goldberg J's orders depended on leave to appeal that had been refused, and directions by Jessup J and Finkelstein J to a Registrar under O 46 r 7A were not appealable judgments.

Court Disposition

The notice of motion as amended on 8 October 2007 was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion as amended on 8 October 2007 is dismissed.' "The applicant is to pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding."]