Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Gauci v Kennedy [2006] FCA 869
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – extension of time sought for leave to appeal – principles to be applied - whether delay adequately explained – fairness and equity - whether prejudice to the respondents - merits of application – whether applicant sexually harassed PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - summary dismissal - principles of summary dismissal – whether case so very clear as to justify summary intervention to prevent the applicant submitting his case for determination PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - interlocutory relief – leave to appeal Held: Decision of learned Federal Magistrate to summarily dismiss part of the applicant's claim is attended by sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration. Leave to extend time for filing notice of appeal granted. Leave to appeal from an interlocutory decision granted.
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 24(1A), 25(2) Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) Pt II Div 3 and ss 28A, 106 Federal Court Rules O 52 r 5, O 52 r 15 Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 r 13.10 Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales [2006] HCA 27 cited Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62 at 91 applied Gauci v Kennedy & Anor [2005] FMCA 1505 cited General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 cited Hassan v Hume (2004) FCA 886 cited Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344 applied Ingram-Nader v Brinks Australia Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 624 cited In the matter of an appeal by Gaye Alexandra Mary Luck [2003] HCA 70 cited Jess v Scott (1986) 70 ALR 185 cited Lovett v Le Gall (1975) 10 SASR 479 cited Parker v The Queen [2002] FCAFC 133 applied Rana v University of South Australia [2004] FCA 559 cited SZBMN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2005) FCAFC 268 cited SZFEA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2005) FCA 634 cited Telstra Corporation Ltd v AAPT Ltd [1997] 38 IPR 539 applied
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