Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Kennedy v Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel [2015] FCA 411 Citation: Kennedy v Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel [2015] FCA 411
Appeal from: TVDB v Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel [2014] AATA 967
Parties: MARTIN KENNEDY v ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATION PANEL and CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AUSTRALIAN SPORTS ANTI-DOPING AUTHORITY
File number: NSD 68 of 2015
Judge: ROBERTSON J
Date of judgment: 5 May 2015 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – discontinuance of appeal – appropriate rule
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 26.12, 33.31
Date of hearing: In chambers
Date of last submissions: 30 April 2015
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 10
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr M Higgins
Solicitor for the Applicant: Unsworth Legal
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr PM Knowles
Solicitor for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 68 of 2015
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN: MARTIN KENNEDY
Applicant
AND: ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATION PANEL
First Respondent
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AUSTRALIAN SPORTS ANTI-DOPING AUTHORITY
Second Respondent
JUDGE: ROBERTSON J DATE: 5 MAY 2015 PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This was an appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made on 31 December 2014. The notice of appeal to the Federal Court was filed on 29 January 2015. 2 An interlocutory application that the name of the applicant not be published was also filed on 29 January 2015. 3 The first case management hearing was held on 18 February 2015. 4 A supplementary notice of appeal was provided on 26 February 2015. 5 On 3 March 2015 the interlocutory application came on for hearing but was adjourned, part heard, on the applicant's application, to 13 March 2015. I made an order that the applicant file and serve on the respondents any further evidence in support of his interlocutory application by 9 March 2015. 6 However, on 11 March 2015 I made orders by consent that the applicant's interlocutory application filed on 29 January 2015 be dismissed and that the costs of the interlocutory application be costs in the cause. 7 On 3 March 2015 I also made orders so that the appeal could be listed for hearing on a date to be fixed on or after 23 June 2015, together with consequential orders. 8 On 30 April 2015 the applicant filed a notice discontinuing the whole of the proceeding by consent and on the basis that, by consent, each party bears their own costs of the proceeding. Notwithstanding the references in that notice of discontinuance to r 26.12 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), I will treat that notice as having been filed under r 33.31 which is the specific rule dealing with appeals from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. 9 Under r 33.31(1)(a), in the present circumstances, before the hearing of the appeal, the Court's leave is not required and by r 33.31(2) the notice of discontinuance has the effect of an order of the Court dismissing the applicant's appeal. 10 This proceeding is therefore now concluded. I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Robertson.
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