Transpacific Pty Ltd v Prudential Retirement and Annuity Company [2011] FCAFC 160

Transpacific Pty Ltd v Prudential Retirement and Annuity Company [2011] FCAFC 160

Leave to appeal refused as no sufficient doubt about correctness of interlocutory orders including dissolution of injunction and indemnity costs; matters relating to evidence and procedural directions are within discretion of docket judge and do not warrant appellate interference; interlocutory applications referred to docket judge.

Parties
Applicant: Transpacific Pty Ltd ACN 073 644 612; First Respondent: Prudential Retirement and Annuity Company; Second Respondent: David John Winterbottom; Third Respondent: David Paul Merryweather
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders / Leave to Appeal (interlocutory) Full Court Decision
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Injunction, Vacation of Hearing Date, Costs (indemnity Basis), Practice Directions
Practice and Procedure Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Injunction Vacation of Hearing Date Costs (indemnity Basis) Practice Directions

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Transpacific Pty Ltd ACN 073 644 612

Applicant

Prudential Retirement and Annuity Company

First Respondent

David John Winterbottom

Second Respondent

David Paul Merryweather

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders / Leave to Appeal (interlocutory) Full Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted from interlocutory orders including dissolution of an interlocutory injunction and directions for evidence filing
  2. 2 Whether indemnity costs order was correct
  3. 3 Whether procedural directions warranted appellate interference

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal refused as no sufficient doubt about correctness of interlocutory orders including dissolution of injunction and indemnity costs; matters relating to evidence and procedural directions are within discretion of docket judge and do not warrant appellate interference; interlocutory applications referred to docket judge.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal from orders made by Stone J on 19 October 2011 refused with costs.
  • Interlocutory Applications filed on 7 November 2011 and 25 November 2011 referred to the docket judge.