Thomas Errin Moss v. Bruce Raymond Brown & Anor [1983] FCA 1

Thomas Errin Moss v. Bruce Raymond Brown & Anor [1983] FCA 1

There are no grounds for treating the application for review as urgent, as further steps remain in the committal process and the decision under review is only a determination that a prima facie case exists.

Parties
Applicant: Thomas Ervin Moss; First Respondent: Bruce Raymond Brown; Second Respondent: Peter Lamb
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 January 1983
Procedural Posture
Application for Review / Interlocutory (application for Expedition)
Outcome
Application for expedition refused
Legal Topics
Committal Proceedings, Prima Facie Case, Jurisdiction, Urgency of Hearing
Criminal Law Judicial Review Committal Proceedings Prima Facie Case Jurisdiction Urgency of Hearing

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Ervin Moss

Applicant

Bruce Raymond Brown

First Respondent

Peter Lamb

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Review / Interlocutory (application for Expedition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction to review the magistrate's decision finding a prima facie case in committal proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the matter should be dealt with urgently during court vacation

Ratio Decidendi

There are no grounds for treating the application for review as urgent, as further steps remain in the committal process and the decision under review is only a determination that a prima facie case exists.

Court Disposition

Application for expedition refused

Orders

  • Applicant to file any additional facts or documentary evidence relied upon within twenty-one (21) days from 6 January 1983.
  • Application for review to be fixed for hearing in early February 1983 by consultation with the registrar.