Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Kuek [2012] FCA 494 Citation: Kuek [2012] FCA 494
Appeal from: Application for leave to appeal Modra v State of Victoria [2012] FCA 240
Party: GABRIEL KUEK
File number: VID 283 of 2012
Judge: JESSUP J
Date of judgment: 16 May 2012
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Leave to appeal – Whether sufficient doubt as to correctness of judgment below to warrant attention of Full Court – Costs ordered to be paid by legal practitioner – Whether there was serious dereliction of duty – Sufficiency of pleading – Whether engagement of counsel relevant – Whether clients' refusal to waive privilege over communications relevant – Whether practitioner certifying pleading retained ultimate responsibility – Whether injustice would arise if leave to appeal not granted.
Legislation: Access to Justice (Civil Litigation Reforms) Amendment Act 2009 (Cth) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 24(1A), 43(3)(f) Supreme Court Act 1981 (UK) s 51
Cases cited: Adam P. Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170 Cement Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer (2010) 187 FCR 261 Décor Corp Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397 Hogan v Australian Crime Commission (2010) 240 CLR 651 House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499 Medcalf v Mardell [2003] 1 AC 120 Stewart v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2010) 267 ALR 637 White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Flower & Hart (a firm) (1998) 156 ALR 169
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