Campbell v Metway Leasing Limited - [2002] FCAFC 47

Campbell v Metway Leasing Limited [2002] FCAFC 47
Campbell v Metway Leasing Limited [2002] FCA 213
NOTE: CHANGES TO THE MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION (MNC)
The Federal Court adopted a new medium neutral citation (FCAFC) for Full Court judgments effective from 1 January 2002. Single Judge judgments will not be affected and will retain the FCA medium neutral citation.
The transitional arrangements are as follows:

All Full Court judgments delivered prior to 1 January 2002 will retain the FCA medium neutral citation.

All Full Court judgments delivered between 1 January 2002 to 30 April 2002 have been assigned parallel medium neutral citations in both the FCA and FCAFC series.

All Full Court judgments delivered from 1 May 2002 will contain the FCAFC medium neutral citation only.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Campbell v Metway Leasing Limited [2002] FCA 213
KEITH MALCOLM CAMPBELL and LOIS AUDREY CAMPBELL v METWAY LEASING LIMITED and ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (INTERVENOR)
No N 1383 of 2001
SPENDER, NICHOLSON, NORTH JJ
SYDNEY
5 MARCH 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 1383 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

KEITH MALCOLM CAMPBELL
FIRST APPELLANT

LOIS AUDREY CAMPBELL
SECOND APPELLANT

AND:

METWAY LEASING LIMITED
RESPONDENT

AND:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
INTERVENOR

JUDGE:

SPENDER, NICHOLSON, NORTH JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

5 MARCH 2002

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The hearing date for the appeal be vacated.

2.The appeal be adjourned to a date to be fixed.

3.There be no order as to the costs of the motion.

4.The Respondent have the costs thrown away by the variation of the hearing date, to be taxed if not agreed.

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:
1.The appellants file written submissions five clear days before the date of hearing of the appeal, those written submissions not to exceed 20 pages.

2.Any authority on which the appellants wish to rely be supplied in photocopy form to the Court with the relevant passages highlighted.

3.Submissions by the respondent and by the intervening party, again limited to 20 pages, be filed and served two clear days before the day appointed for the hearing of the appeal. Again, each of those parties is to supply to the Court photocopies of authorities on which that party wishes to rely, with relevant passages marked or highlighted.

4.If the appellants wish to contend for a chronology different from that which is exhibited to the affidavit of Mr Annis-Brown filed today, that amended chronology should accompany the filing of the written submissions.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 1383 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

KEITH MALCOLM CAMPBELL
FIRST APPELLANT

LOIS AUDREY CAMPBELL
SECOND APPELLANT

AND:

METWAY LEASING LIMITED
RESPONDENT

AND:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
INTERVENOR

JUDGE:

SPENDER, NICHOLSON, NORTH JJ

DATE:

5 MARCH 2002

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:

This is a notice of motion on behalf of the appellants…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Campbell v Metway Leasing Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] FCAFC 47
Decision Date: 5 MARCH 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Campbell v Metway Leasing Limited, the primary issue before the court was the setting of the appeal hearing date and the associated procedural matters. The dispute between the parties centred on the interpretation and application of certain legal principles and the procedural fairness in the conduct of the appeal process. The Court of Appeal was tasked with managing these procedural aspects efficiently and fairly.

The court had to decide whether to vacate the previously scheduled hearing date for the appeal and to set a new date. Additionally, the court needed to establish the procedural requirements for the filing of written submissions and authorities by the parties involved. The court was also required to address the issue of costs associated with the variation of the hearing date and to direct the parties on the preparation and submission of their respective documents.

The court reasoned that vacating the existing hearing date and setting a new one would facilitate a more orderly and expeditious resolution of the appeal. The court emphasised the importance of procedural fairness and the need for all parties to prepare adequately for the hearing. The court directed that written submissions not exceed 20 pages and that relevant authorities be supplied with highlighted passages. The court also made an order for the costs of the motion to be thrown away by the respondent, to be taxed if not agreed.

The court’s final orders included vacating the initial hearing date, setting a new date for the appeal, directing the preparation and submission of written submissions and authorities by the parties, and addressing the costs associated with the variation of the hearing date. The court ensured that all parties had clear instructions on the procedural steps to follow, aiming to streamline the appeal process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The hearing date for the appeal be vacated.

2. The appeal be adjourned to a date to be fixed.

3. There be no order as to the costs of the motion.

4. The Respondent have the costs thrown away by the variation of the hearing date, to be taxed if not agreed.

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

1. The appellants file written submissions five clear days before the date of hearing of the appeal, those written submissions not to exceed 20 pages.

2. Any authority on which the appellants wish to rely be supplied in photocopy form to the Court with the relevant passages highlighted.

3. Submissions by the respondent and by the intervening party, again limited to 20 pages, be filed and served two clear days before the day appointed for the hearing of the appeal. Again, each of those parties is to supply to the Court photocopies of authorities on which that party wishes to rely, with relevant passages marked or highlighted.

4. If the appellants wish to contend for a chronology different from that which is exhibited to the affidavit of Mr Annis-Brown filed today, that amended chronology should accompany the filing of the written submissions.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

SPENDER, NICHOLSON, NORTH JJ

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: SPENDER, NICHOLSON, NORTH JJ

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1383 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	KEITH MALCOLM CAMPBELL FIRST APPELLANT LOIS AUDREY CAMPBELL SECOND APPELLANT
AND:	METWAY LEASING LIMITED RESPONDENT
AND:	ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA INTERVENOR
JUDGE:	SPENDER, NICHOLSON, NORTH JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	5 MARCH 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	SPENDER, NICHOLSON, NORTH JJ
DATE:	5 MARCH 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY