Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Tarrant v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2014] FCA 657 Citation: Tarrant v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2014] FCA 657
Appeal from: Tarrant v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2013] AATA 926
Parties: MERVYN ROSS TARRANT v AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION
File number: NSD 37 of 2014
Judge: GRIFFITHS J
Date of judgment: 17 June 2014
Catchwords: EVIDENCE – interlocutory application – extent to which appellant can rely upon affidavit in appeal – whether content of affidavit properly regarded as submissions or evidence – discussion of s 78 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 78
Cases cited: Lithgow City Council v Jackson [2011] HCA 36; (2011) 244 CLR 352
Date of hearing: 17 June 2014
Date of last submissions: 16 June 2014
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 8
Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant appeared in person.
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms E A Cheeseman SC and Ms M Avenell
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Securities and Investments Commission
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 37 of 2014
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN: MERVYN ROSS TARRANT
Appellant
AND: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION
Respondent
JUDGE: GRIFFITHS J DATE OF ORDER: 17 JUNE 2014 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The affidavit of the appellant affirmed on 14 May 2014 may only be relied upon to the extent that it is not excluded by the rulings below: a) Paragraph 6 is rejected, save for the second sentence starting "annexed to the affidavit". b) Paragraphs 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 19, 21, 23-26, 28-64, 66-67, 69, 71-75, 77-90, 92-96, 98-100, 104-173, 175-180, 183, 191-217, 224-227, 232-233, 235-385, 387-405, 426-429 are rejected. c) Paragraph 9 is rejected, save for the last sentence. d) Paragraph 11 is rejected, save for the last sentence. e) Paragraph 13 is rejected, save for the last sentence. f) Paragraph 15 is rejected, save for the last sentence. g) Paragraph 17 is rejected, save for the last sentence. h) Paragraph 18 is rejected, save for the last sentence. i) Paragraph 20 is rejected, save for the last sentence. j) Paragraph 22 is rejected, save for the last sentence. k) Paragraph 27 is rejected, save for the last sentence. l) Paragraph 91 is rejected, save for the last sentence. m) Paragraph 223 is rejected, save for the first sentence. n) Paragraph 386 is rejected, save for the last sentence. The table below paragraph 386 is also rejected. o) Paragraph 430 is rejected, save for the last sentence. 2. The costs of today's interlocutory hearing be costs in the cause. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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