TS Production LLC v Drew Pictures Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1329

TS Production LLC v Drew Pictures Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1329

Given the significant consequences and potential for substantial injustice to the applicant, and the complexity and efficiency considerations involved, the presumption for a single judge is displaced and the application for leave to appeal should be heard by a Full Court.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal (from Interlocutory Judgment) / Determination of Whether Application for Leave to Appeal Should Be Heard by Single Judge or Full Court
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal to be heard by Full Court.
Legal Topics
['application for Leave to Appeal' 'role of Full Court Versus Single Judge' 'expedition of Appeals']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal (from Interlocutory Judgment) / Determination of Whether Application for Leave to Appeal Should Be Heard by Single Judge or Full Court

  1. 1 ['Should the application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment be determined by a single judge or by the Full Court?']

Ratio Decidendi

Given the significant consequences and potential for substantial injustice to the applicant, and the complexity and efficiency considerations involved, the presumption for a single judge is displaced and the application for leave to appeal should be heard by a Full Court.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal to be heard by Full Court.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal be heard by a Full Court of this Court.' 'Subject to any contrary direction of the Full Court, the application for leave to appeal be heard concurrently with, or alternatively, immediately before the appeal.' 'Mutatis mutandis, the parties comply with Practice Note 1 of 2008.'...