Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Wood v Lee-Joe [2015] FCA 248 Citation: Wood v Lee-Joe [2015] FCA 248
Appeal from: Application for extension of time and leave to appeal: Wood v Lee-Joe [2014] FCCA 309
Parties: HARRY WOOD, CARER FOR MS ELSIE LYNNE NEILSON v ANDREW LEE-JOE
File number: NSD 398 of 2014
Judge: ROBERTSON J
Date of judgment: 23 March 2015
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for extension of time and leave to appeal from interlocutory judgment of Federal Circuit Court – whether person who purportedly commenced proceedings on behalf of another person under s 46PO(1) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) had standing – issue dealt with in final judgment of Federal Circuit Court – other claims now effectively moot – application in relation to the earlier interlocutory judgment of the Federal Circuit Court of no further utility – application dismissed
Legislation: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s 46PO
Cases cited: Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 22; (2002) 209 CLR 478 Wood v Lee-Joe [2014] FCCA 309 Wood v Lee-Joe (No. 3) [2015] FCCA 354
Date of hearing: 17 March 2015
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 10
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant did not appear
Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms PA Keith
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 398 of 2014
BETWEEN: HARRY WOOD, CARER FOR MS ELSIE LYNNE NEILSON
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