Hu v Giles [2010] FCA 592

Hu v Giles [2010] FCA 592

The exercise of the court's jurisdiction by a single judge to consider whether to grant an extension of time for appealing is a competent exercise of appellate jurisdiction under s 25(2) of the Act and O 52 r 2AA. As a result, the appeal to the Full Court is incompetent and must be dismissed; any further challenge...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Motion to Dismiss Appeal as Incompetent
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as incompetent; costs ordered against the applicant.
Legal Topics
['appellate Jurisdiction' 'extension of Time' 'competency of Appeal' 'dismissal of Appeal']
['practice and Procedure'] ['appellate Jurisdiction' 'extension of Time' 'competency of Appeal' 'dismissal of Appeal']

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 / Motion to Dismiss Appeal as Incompetent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the grant or refusal of extension of time to appeal by a single judge is a competent exercise of appellate jurisdiction under s 25 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)' 'Whether appeal from such decision is competent']

Ratio Decidendi

The exercise of the court's jurisdiction by a single judge to consider whether to grant an extension of time for appealing is a competent exercise of appellate jurisdiction under s 25(2) of the Act and O 52 r 2AA. As a result, the appeal to the Full Court is incompetent and must be dismissed; any further challenge is by special leave to the High Court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as incompetent; costs ordered against the applicant.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed as incompetent pursuant to O 52 r 18(1) of the Federal Court Rules.' 'The applicant pay the costs of the respondents of the motion filed on 17 March 2010, amended on 20 May 2010, to be taxed.']