Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Layton v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2002] FCA 1500 GORDON LEITH LAYTON v CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY Q 131 OF 2002
DRUMMOND J 29 NOVEMBER 2002 BRISBANE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 131 OF 2002
BETWEEN: GORDON LEITH LAYTON
APPLICANT
AND: CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: DRUMMOND J
DATE OF ORDER: 29 NOVEMBER 2002
WHERE MADE: BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. That the matter be adjourned to Friday, 6 December 2002.
2. The costs of today be adjourned to Friday, 6 December 2002.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 131 OF 2002
BETWEEN: GORDON LEITH LAYTON
APPLICANT
AND: CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: DRUMMOND J
DATE: 29 NOVEMBER 2002
PLACE: BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 I have two applications before me by Mr Layton, the applicant, in proceedings Q 131 of 2002. The first is a notice of motion seeking leave to appeal from what is described as the interlocutory judgment of Kiefel J given on 2 October 2002. The second is an application for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal against that judgment. It appears clear enough - and this is confirmed by Mr Broadbent, who appears today as counsel for Mr Layton - that the two applications were brought to cover the possibility that the judgment of Kiefel J given on 2 October might be characterised as interlocutory rather than final. 2 It is, however, clear that the judgment is a final judgment. Her Honour made orders summarily dismissing Mr Layton's originating application and orders that Mr Layton and Mr Broadbent, who appeared in those proceedings as Mr Layton's counsel, both be ordered to pay the Authority's costs on an indemnity basis. 3 The only applications before me today are the notice of motion and the application for extension of time to which I have referred. They are brought only by Mr Layton. Although a costs order was made against Mr Broadbent personally, he has not brought any application before the Court challenging the order affecting him. 4 The notice of appeal that Mr Layton wants to file should have been filed by 23 October. Mr Layton's notice of motion and his application for extension of time to appeal are dated 24 October, although they bear a Court stamp as having been filed the following day, 25 October. It was common ground on the hearing before me that the application for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was filed one day late. It may be that it was presented to the Registry on the 24th but not actually stamped as received until the 25th. In any event, whether it be two days rather than only one day late does not seem to me to matter in this case. 5 There is no draft notice of appeal exhibited to the application for the extension of time identifying the grounds upon which Mr Layton would wish to appeal the judgment of Kiefel J if the extension of time were granted. But Mr Broadbent has filed an affidavit sworn on 24 October and bearing the Court stamp, "Filed 25 October," in support of the application for extension of time in which he says:
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