Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Quach v Marks (No 2) [2022] FCA 1335 File numbers: ACD 25 of 2021 ACD 57 of 2021
Judgment of: YATES J
Date of judgment: 11 November 2022
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – applications for leave to appeal from decisions of a single judge of the Court – applications refused
Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 91 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 31A(2) Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 9.12, 13.01, 26.01, 35.01 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Health Practitioner Regulation National Law 2009 (NSW)
Cases cited: Gedeon v New South Wales Crime Commission [2008] HCA 43; 236 CLR 120 Hamod v New South Wales (2002) 188 ALR 659 Health Care Complaints Commission v Quach (No 2) [2015] NSWCATOD 32 Health Care Complaints Commission v Quach [2015] NSWCATOD 2 Hurd v Zomojo Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 581 Qantas Airways Ltd v Lustig [2015] FCA 253; 228 FCR 148 Quach v Marks (No 2) [2021] FCA 922 Quach v Marks [2021] FCA 335 Quach v Marks [2022] FCA 511 Quach v New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission; Quach v New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal [2017] NSWCA 267 Quach v New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission [2016] NSWCA 10 Rana v Google Inc [2017] FCAFC 156; 254 FCR 1 Thomas Borthwick & Sons (Pacific Holdings) Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1988) 18 FCR 424
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