Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Elvin v Fair Work Ombudsman (No 1) [2024] FCA 1071 Appeal from: Fair Work Ombudsman v Foot & Thai Massage Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 8) [2024] FCA 483
File number(s): ACD 38 of 2024
Judgment of: COLLIER J
Date of judgment: 16 September 2024
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether order to stay proceedings under judgment subject to appeal – s 29 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 36.08 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – balance of convenience – whether serious questions for determination in appeal – interests of justice – partial stay of proceedings ordered
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 29 Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 36.08
Cases cited: Cachia v Hanes [1994] HCA 14; (1994) 179 CLR 403 Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v CZBP [2014] FCAFC 105 Viagogo AG v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2021] FCA 175 De Pyle v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2023] FCA 751 National Retail Association v Fair Work Commission (No 2) [2014] FCA 664
Division: Fair Work Division
Registry: Australian Capital Territory
National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations
Number of paragraphs: 19
Date of last submission/s: 12 July 2024
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers
Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant was self-represented
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