Loevski v Australian Securities & Investment Commission [2001] FCA 1157

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Loevski v Australian Securities & Investment Commission [2001] FCA 1157 YAKOV LOEVSKI V AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES & INVESTMENTS COMMISSION AND ANOR MARSHALL J MELBOURNE 6 DECEMBER 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 1167 OF 2001

BETWEEN: YAKOV LOEVSKI

APPLICANT

AND: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION

FIRST RESPONDENT

AND: STEVEN SHERMAN

SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGE: MARSHALL J

DATE OF ORDER: 6 DECEMBER 2001

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The notice of appeal filed by the applicant on 9 November 2001 be struck out as against the second respondent. 2. The applicant pay the second respondent's costs of the application. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 1167 OF 2001

BETWEEN: YAKOV LOEVSKI

APPLICANT

AND: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION

FIRST RESPONDENT

AND: STEVEN SHERMAN

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MARSHALL J

DATE: 6 DECEMBER 2001

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 A notice of motion was filed by the second respondent seeking that the notice of appeal in this matter be struck out as against that party. The relevant Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("AAT") decision the subject of the appeal concerned a request by the applicant that the first respondent undertake a particular investigation. The applicant specifically complained that the first respondent should further investigate a particular matter. The first respondent's failure to do so was the subject of the proceeding before the AAT. The only proper respondent to the appeal from the decision of the AAT is the first respondent. 2 I therefore make the following orders: 1. The notice of appeal filed by the applicant on 9 November 2001 be struck out as against the second respondent. 2. The applicant pay the second respondent's costs of the application. I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall.