Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Rowe v Emmanuel College [2013] FCA 939 Citation: Rowe v Emmanuel College [2013] FCA 939
Appeal from: Rowe v Emmanuel College (No 2) [2013] FCCA 501 Rowe v Emmanuel College (No 3) [2013] FCCA 1113
Parties: CHAD EVERETT ROWE v EMMANUEL COLLEGE ACN 010 563 256
File numbers: QUD 236 of 2013 QUD 322 of 2013 QUD 534 of 2013
Judge: RANGIAH J
Date of judgment: 18 September 2013
Corrigenda: 3 October 2013 19 September 2013
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – applications – leave to appeal – extension of time for leave to appeal – prospects of success – whether substantial injustice PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – costs – security for costs – impecuniosity – costs of appeal – prospects of success – no delay PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – judgments and orders stay – pending appeal – prospects of success – balance of convenience
Legislation: Competition & Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2, ss 18, 20, 23 and 236 Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) s 17A Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 rr 13.10 and 36.08 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 24(1A), 29, 31A and 56 Schools Assistance Act 2008 (Cth) s 20 Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Act (No. 2) 2010 s 8 of Sch 7
Cases cited: ACCC v CG Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd (2003) 214 CLR 51 cited Coal and Allied Operations Pty Limited v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 203 CLR 194 applied Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447 discussed Dubow v Fitness First (Australia) Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 660 applied Decor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397 applied Dobson v Australian Postal Corporation [2013] FCA 320 applied Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 applied Equity Access Limited v Westpac Banking Corporation (1989) ATPR 40-972 applied Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Ltd (2000) 104 FCR 564 applied Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd (2013) 298 ALR 35 cited Louth v Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621 cited Madgwick v Kelly (2013) 299 ALR 188 applied Minogue v Williams [2000] FCA 125 applied MZYTT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] FCA 76 applied Norcast S.ár.L. v Bradken Limited (No 3) [2013] FCA 283 applied Powerflex Services Pty Ltd v Data Access Corporation (1996) 67 FCR 65 applied Scott v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2007] FCA 2055 cited Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 241 CLR 118 cited Tait v Bindal People [2002] FCA 322 applied Wilson v Alexander (2003) 135 FCR 273 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