Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Cristovao v Tan & Tan Lawyers Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 1201 Appeal from: Tan & Tan Lawyers Pty Ltd, in the matter of Cristovao v Cristovao [2017] FCA 786 Cristovao v Tan & Tan Lawyers Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 794
File number: WAD 405 of 2017
Judge: KERR J
Date of judgment: 12 October 2017
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – circumstances justifying the removal of party PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – two appeals commenced by single originating process – second appeal from interlocutory decision – leave to appeal not sought – time to seek leave expired – decision of primary judge plainly correct – second appeal dismissed
Legislation: Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth) Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), s 60 Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 24, 25, 31A Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39B Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rr 35.13, 36.52
Cases cited: Avetmiss Easy Pty Ltd v Australian Skills Qualification Authority [2014] FCA 507 Cristovao v Tan & Tan Lawyers Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 794 Cummings v Claremont Petroleum NL [1996] HCA 19; (1996) 185 CLR 124 French v Gray, Special Minister of State [2013] FCA 263; (2013) 217 FCR 404 Re East; Ex parte Nguyen [1998] HCA 73; (1998) 196 CLR 354 Re Luck [2003] HCA 70; (2003) 78 ALJR 177 Scott v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2007] FCA 2055 Tan & Tan Lawyers Pty Ltd, in the matter of Cristovao v Cristovao [2017] FCA 786
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