De Alwis v Hair [2003] FCA 10

De Alwis v Hair [2003] FCA 10

The motion for ex parte interlocutory relief was dismissed because a single judge, absent a direction of the Chief Justice, could not grant an injunction that would effectively determine the appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court. The Notice of Appeal/Urgent Application was struck out because, insofar as it...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court and Application Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) Seeking Urgent Ex Parte Interim Injunctive Relief / Interlocutory Motion and Threshold Consideration Before a Single Judge
Outcome
Motion dismissed; Notice of Appeal/Urgent Application struck out; leave granted to file a properly formulated notice of appeal within seven days.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction Under S 46 PP of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (cth)' 'disability Discrimination Complaint Concerning a Professional Cricketer' 'standing to Seek Relief for Alleged Disability Discrimination' 'judicial Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth)' 'appeals From the Federal Magistrates Court' 'single Judge Powers in Appellate Jurisdiction']
['human Rights' 'disability Discrimination' 'administrative Law' 'federal Appellate Procedure'] ['interlocutory Injunction Under S 46 PP of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (cth)' 'disability Discrimination Complaint Concerning a Professional Cricketer' 'standing to Seek Relief for Alleged Disability Discrimination' 'judicial Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth)' 'appeals From the Federal Magistrates Court' 'single Judge Powers in Appellate Jurisdiction']

Source-derived case record

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

Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court and Application Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) Seeking Urgent Ex Parte Interim Injunctive Relief / Interlocutory Motion and Threshold Consideration Before a Single Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Federal Court should grant urgent ex parte interlocutory relief restraining Mr Darrell Hair from umpiring matches involving Mr Muttiah Muralitharan pending an appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court.' "Whether the Notice of Appeal/Urgent Application validly invoked the Court's original jurisdiction under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)." 'Whether any decision of the Australian Cricket Board, the International Cricket Council or an umpire was identified as an administrative decision made under an enactment.' 'Whether the application should be struck out and leave given to file a properly formulated notice of appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The motion for ex parte interlocutory relief was dismissed because a single judge, absent a direction of the Chief Justice, could not grant an injunction that would effectively determine the appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court. The Notice of Appeal/Urgent Application was struck out because, insofar as it invoked the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), no relevant Commonwealth enactment or administrative decision made under an enactment was identified; the application was therefore utterly misconceived in that respect.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed; Notice of Appeal/Urgent Application struck out; leave granted to file a properly formulated notice of appeal within seven days.

Orders

  • ['The motion filed on 8 January 2003 is dismissed.' 'The Notice of Appeal/Urgent Application filed on 8 January 2003 is struck out.' 'There is leave to file a Notice of Appeal properly formulated within seven days.']