Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Cristovao v Forensic Documents Examiners Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1131 Citation: Cristovao v Forensic Documents Examiners Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1131
Parties: ROGERIO MARTINS CRISTOVAO v FORENSIC DOCUMENTS EXAMINERS PTY LTD
File number: TAD 49 of 2011
Judge: MIDDLETON J
Date of judgment: 30 September 2011
Cases cited: Ruddock v Vadarlis (No 2) (2001) 115 FCR 229
Date of hearing: 30 September 2011
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 18
Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms P Sutherland
Solicitor for the Respondent: Page Seager
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA TASMANIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION TAD 49 of 2011
BETWEEN: ROGERIO MARTINS CRISTOVAO
Applicant
AND: FORENSIC DOCUMENTS EXAMINERS PTY LTD
Respondent
JUDGE: MIDDLETON J DATE OF ORDER: 30 SEPTEMBER 2011 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the costs of the respondent of and in connection with the application. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA TASMANIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION TAD 49 of 2011
BETWEEN: ROGERIO MARTINS CRISTOVAO
Applicant
AND: FORENSIC DOCUMENTS EXAMINERS PTY LTD
Respondent
JUDGE: MIDDLETON J DATE: 30 SEPTEMBER 2011 PLACE: MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1. This is an application for leave to appeal a decision of Marshall J decided on 28 July 2011. 2. The background to the application is set out it in the reasons of the primary judge and needs no repeating. The application for leave is supported by a statement of grounds and material in support filed by the applicant, including affidavit material. 3. Whether leave to appeal is required or not, in my view there is no substance in the matters raised by the applicant. I agree with the reasons of the primary judge. 4. In considering the question of costs the Court looks to the relief granted in the substantive hearing. The relief granted was that the statutory demand was set aside. The respondent was wholly successful and was entitled to be treated as such. 5. The primary judge so found and applied the relevant principles set out in Ruddock v Vadarlis (No 2) (2001) 115 FCR 229 (see paragraph 12 of the primary judge's reasons). 6. In my view, he correctly so decided and correctly exercised his discretion in not granting an extension of time to seek a review because any review would be futile and bound to fail. 7. The applicant has not shown any reason by contention or evidence to show that there are any circumstances which justify a different order as to costs. 8. Looking at the specific grounds raised in the statement of grounds relied upon by the applicant, I make the following observations.
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