Chan v Harris [2010] FCA 1428

Chan v Harris [2010] FCA 1428

Mr Chan's notice of appeal was incompetent because it was from an interlocutory decision for which leave was required under s 24(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth); leave to amend the notice of appeal was refused for this reason and because the grounds for amendment were not articulated. Leave to issue subpoenas was properly refused as the extant motions raised only questions of law. The appropriate procedural course was for Mr Chan to file an affidavit with a draft notice of appeal, and all other prayers in the notices of motion were adjourned.

Parties
Applicant: Yau Hang Chan; Respondent: Alan Harris
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Motion for Leave to Appeal and Related Interlocutory Applications / Interlocutory (directions/orders Following Related Judgments)
Outcome
Orders made; application for leave to amend notice of appeal refused; hearing of remaining prayers in notices of motion stood over.
Legal Topics
Preliminary Discovery, Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Orders, Amendment of Notice of Appeal, Stay Applications
Civil Procedure Preliminary Discovery Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders Amendment of Notice of Appeal Stay Applications

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yau Hang Chan

Applicant

Alan Harris

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion for Leave to Appeal and Related Interlocutory Applications / Interlocutory (directions/orders Following Related Judgments)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notice of appeal filed by Mr Chan was competent without leave of the Court under s 24(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether Mr Chan should be granted leave to amend his notice of appeal
  3. 3 Whether Mr Chan should be granted leave to issue subpoenas

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Chan's notice of appeal was incompetent because it was from an interlocutory decision for which leave was required under s 24(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth); leave to amend the notice of appeal was refused for this reason and because the grounds for amendment were not articulated. Leave to issue subpoenas was properly refused as the extant motions raised only questions of law. The appropriate procedural course was for Mr Chan to file an affidavit with a draft notice of appeal, and all other prayers in the notices of motion were adjourned.

Court Disposition

Orders made; application for leave to amend notice of appeal refused; hearing of remaining prayers in notices of motion stood over.

Orders

  • The applicant is to file and serve an affidavit attaching a draft notice of appeal incorporating existing and any further grounds.
  • The hearing of the remaining prayers in the notices of motion filed on 1 November 2010 (as amended) and 24 November 2010 be stood over to a date to be fixed.