Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia Cavar v Australian Unity Home Care Services Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1285 Appeal from:
File number(s):
Judgment of: NEEDHAM J
Date of judgment: 8 November 2024
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for extension of time to file application for leave to appeal – no evidence of "incorrect instructions" given by Registry – attempt to file special leave application instead – explanation not given for whole of period of delay PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to appeal – no prospects of success of grounds of appeal – application dismissed.
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2, ss 18, 27, 31 Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 24(1A), 26(1)(a), 31A(2)(b), 33(2) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 r 13.06(1)(e) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 26.01(1)(d), 35.13(a), 35.14, 35.18
Cavar v Australian Unity Home Care Services (No 4) [2022] FedCFamC2G 824 Cavar v Australian Unity Home Care Services (No 5) [2022] FedCFamC2G 1051 Cavar v Australian Unity Home Care Services Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 387 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Miraki [2022] FCAFC 96 Cases cited: Finch v The Heat Group (No 3) [2017] FCA 64 Krajniw v Hunt [2017] FCA 483 Quach v Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Extension of Time) [2023] FCA 578 Russel v Macquarie Bank Ltd [2020] FCA 1332 Sharman License Holdings Ltd v Universal Music Aust Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 802
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