Loevski v Australian Securities & Investments Commission [2002] FCAFC 116

Loevski v Australian Securities & Investments Commission [2002] FCAFC 116

Time for applicant to seek leave to appeal was extended due to self-representation and language difficulties, but leave to appeal was refused as the proposed appeal had no merit and no error was shown in the primary judge's orders; no appeal lies from an order transferring to Federal Magistrates Court.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal (extension of Time and Leave) From Interlocutory Orders / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for extension of time granted; leave to appeal refused; applicant ordered to pay respondents' costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time for Appeal' 'leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders' 'proper Parties to Proceedings' 'jurisdiction of Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'transfer of Proceedings to Federal Magistrates Court' 'costs']
['administrative Law' 'corporate Insolvency'] ['extension of Time for Appeal' 'leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders' 'proper Parties to Proceedings' 'jurisdiction of Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'transfer of Proceedings to Federal Magistrates Court' '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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal (extension of Time and Leave) From Interlocutory Orders / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended for application for leave to appeal from interlocutory orders of Marshall J made 6 December 2001' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted against those orders' 'Whether second respondent (Steven Sherman) was a proper party to the proceeding' 'Whether order transferring matter to Federal Magistrates Court was appealable']

Ratio Decidendi

Time for applicant to seek leave to appeal was extended due to self-representation and language difficulties, but leave to appeal was refused as the proposed appeal had no merit and no error was shown in the primary judge's orders; no appeal lies from an order transferring to Federal Magistrates Court.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time granted; leave to appeal refused; applicant ordered to pay respondents' costs.

Orders

  • ['Time for applicant to apply for leave to appeal from orders made by Marshall J on 6 December 2001 extended to 29 January 2002.' 'Leave to appeal against those orders refused.' "Applicant to pay respondents' costs of applications."]