Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Gao v Fair Work Ombudsman [2013] FCA 754 Citation: Gao v Fair Work Ombudsman [2013] FCA 754
Parties: PENG GAO v FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN
File number: VID 644 of 2013
Judge: BROMBERG J
Date of judgment: 24 July 2013
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal – considerations relevant to the court's discretion to grant an extension – whether adequate explanation for delay – whether applicant has reasonable prospect of success on the substantive appeal – whether appeal is from orders affecting liberty of the individual – whether appeal is from orders that are interlocutory in nature – whether leave to appeal is required – application dismissed.
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 24(1A), 24(1B), 24(1C), 24(1C)(a), 24(1D), 24(1D)(a)
Cases cited: Gao v Citywide Service Solutions Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 388 Parker v The Queen [2002] FCAFC 133 Wilson v Alexander (2003) 135 FCR 273 Talacko v Talacko (2010) 183 FCR 297 Re Luck (2003) 203 ALR 1 Anying Group Pty Ltd v Wang [2012] FCA 702
Date of hearing: 24 July 2013
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 26
Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms M Richards
Solicitor for the Respondent: Minter Ellison Lawyers
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 644 of 2013
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