Wride v Schulze [2004] FCAFC 216

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Wride v Schulze [2004] FCAFC 216

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – applications for leave to appeal – interlocutory judgment of trial judge striking out pleadings and dismissing application – no reasonable cause of action – no utility in granting leave to appeal Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 24(1) Federal Court Rules O 11 r 3, O 11 r 1O, O 11 r 16, O 20 r 2(1), O 52 r 10

Meredith v Commissioner of Taxation (2002) 192 ALR 418 referred to Re Luck (2003) 203 ALR 1 referred to Carr v Finance Corporation of Australia Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 246 cited Thomas Borthwick & Sons (Pacific Holdings) Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1988) 18 FCR 424 cited Bomanite Pty Ltd v Slatex Corp Aust Pty Ltd (1991) 104 ALR 165 referred to General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 referred to Wentworth v Rogers (No 5) (1986) 6 NSWLR 534 referred to Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658 referred to National Mutual Property Services (Australia) Pty Ltd v Citibank Savings Ltd (1995) 132 ALR 514 referred to DONALD CHARLES WRIDE v HOWARD K SCHULZE AND G E HABEL No S 49 of 2004 DONALD CHARLES WRIDE v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA No S 50 of 2004 SPENDER, TAMBERLIN AND BENNETT JJ BRISBANE (heard in Adelaide) 17 AUGUST 2004

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 49 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: DONALD CHARLES WRIDE

APPLICANT

AND: HOWARD K SCHULZE

FIRST RESPONDENT

AND: G E HABEL

SECOND RESPONDENT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 50 OF 2004

AND BETWEEN: DONALD CHARLES WRIDE

APPLICANT

AND: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

RESPONDENT

JUDGES: SPENDER, TAMBERLIN AND BENNETT JJ