Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Martin v Norton Rose Fulbright Australia [2019] FCAFC 234 Appeal from: Application for extension of time: Martin v Norton Rose Fulbright Australia (No 2) [2019] FCA 96
File number: SAD 40 of 2019
Judges: BESANKO, FLICK AND ABRAHAM JJ
Date of judgment: 18 December 2019
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – leave to appeal from interlocutory decision granted – failure to file notice of appeal within time – application for extension of time – extension refused – delay on part of applicant – insufficient prospects of success – interests of justice – finality in litigation EVIDENCE – claim for legal professional privilege – discretion to inspect documents – discretion did not miscarry
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 27, 37AF Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 36.05
Cases cited: AZAEY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 193 CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 19 Grant v Downs (1976) 135 CLR 674 Hancock v Rinehart (Privilege) [2016] NSWSC 12 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Martin v Norton Rose Fulbright Australia [2019] FCA 1101 Martin v Norton Rose Fulbright Australia (No 2) [2019] FCA 96 Reaper v Baycorp Collections PDL (Australia) Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 426 Rich v Harrington [2007] FCA 1987, (2007) 245 ALR 106 Rinehart v Rinehart [2016] NSWCA 58 Trade Practices Commission v Sterling (1979) 36 FLR 244 Waterford v Commonwealth of Australia [1987] 163 CLR 54.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate