Chan v Harris (No 3) [2011] FCA 341

Chan v Harris (No 3) [2011] FCA 341

Section 24(1A) validly defines and limits the Federal Court's appellate jurisdiction by requiring leave for appeals from interlocutory judgments, and Mr Chan's constitutional challenge was unarguable so s 78B was not engaged. The primary judge's interlocutory orders were not attended by sufficient doubt and did not cause substantial injustice; no identified factual or legal error justified leave. The stay application was futile, and because leave to appeal was refused the notice of appeal was incompetent and amendment should not be allowed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Application Concerning a Purported Appeal From Interlocutory Orders, Including a Declaration That S 24(1 A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth) Is Unconstitutional, Leave to Appeal, Extension of Time, Stay, and Amendment of the Notice of Appeal / Determination of Notices of Motion Filed on 1 November 2010 and 24 November 2010 and Competence of Purported Appeal
Outcome
Notices of motion dismissed; leave to appeal and extension of time refused; appeal dismissed as incompetent.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment' 'extension of Time' 'constitutional Validity of S 24(1 A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)' 'section 78 B Notice' 'recusal Application' 'subpoenas' 'stay of Proceedings' 'amendment of Notice of Appeal']
['practice and Procedure' 'appellate Procedure' 'constitutional Law'] ['leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment' 'extension of Time' 'constitutional Validity of S 24(1 A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)' 'section 78 B Notice' 'recusal Application' 'subpoenas' 'stay of Proceedings' 'amendment of Notice of Appeal']

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 Concerning a Purported Appeal From Interlocutory Orders, Including a Declaration That S 24(1 A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth) Is Unconstitutional, Leave to Appeal, Extension of Time, Stay, and Amendment of the Notice of Appeal / Determination of Notices of Motion Filed on 1 November 2010 and 24 November 2010 and Competence of Purported Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 24(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) is unconstitutional' 'Whether the proceeding involved a constitutional matter requiring notice to Attorneys-General under s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)' 'Whether an extension of time should be granted to seek leave to appeal' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted from interlocutory orders made on 12 October 2010' 'Whether a stay of the proceeding before the primary judge should be granted' 'Whether leave should be granted to amend the notice of appeal']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 24(1A) validly defines and limits the Federal Court's appellate jurisdiction by requiring leave for appeals from interlocutory judgments, and Mr Chan's constitutional challenge was unarguable so s 78B was not engaged. The primary judge's interlocutory orders were not attended by sufficient doubt and did not cause substantial injustice; no identified factual or legal error justified leave. The stay application was futile, and because leave to appeal was refused the notice of appeal was incompetent and amendment should not be allowed.

Court Disposition

Notices of motion dismissed; leave to appeal and extension of time refused; appeal dismissed as incompetent.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed on 1 November 2010 be dismissed' 'The notice of motion filed on 24 November 2010 also be dismissed' 'The appeal is dismissed as incompetent']