Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited (No 1)

Link copied
Case Copied 5 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited (No 1) [2013] FCA 798

Citation: Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited (No 1) [2013] FCA 798
Appeal from: Application for extension of time and leave to appeal from: Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited (No 2) [2012] FCA 407
Parties: VIVIENNE LOUISE DYE v COMMONWEALTH SECURITIES LIMITED (ACN 067 254 399), SIR RALPH NORRIS, MICHAEL BLOMFIELD, COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA (ACN 123 123 124) and BARBARA CHAPMAN
File number: NSD 1548 of 2013
Judge: PERRAM J
Date of judgment: 9 August 2013
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application for leave to appeal from Federal Court of Australia
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 34.24
Cases cited: Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited [2012] FCA 242 cited
Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited [2012] FCA 992 cited
Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited (No 2) [2012] FCA 407 cited
Date of hearing: 9 August 2013
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 11
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr M Richardson
Solicitor for the Respondents: Herbert Smith Freehills

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1548 of 2013
BETWEEN:

VIVIENNE LOUISE DYE
Applicant
AND:

COMMONWEALTH SECURITIES LIMITED (ACN 067 254 399)
First Respondent

SIR RALPH NORRIS
Second Respondent

MICHAEL BLOMFIELD
Third Respondent

COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA (ACN 123 123 124)
Fourth Respondent

BARBARA CHAPMAN
Fifth Respondent

JUDGE:

PERRAM J

DATE OF ORDER:

9 AUGUST 2013

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed with costs.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1548 of 2013
BETWEEN:

VIVIENNE LOUISE DYE
Applicant
AND:

COMMONWEALTH SECURITIES LIMITED (ACN 067 254 399)
First Respondent

SIR RALPH NORRIS
Second Respondent

MICHAEL BLOMFIELD
Third Respondent

COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA (ACN 123 123 124)
Fourth Respondent

BARBARA CHAPMAN
Fifth Respondent

JUDGE:

PERRAM J

DATE:

9 AUGUST 2013

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal from orders made by Buchanan J on 20 April 2012.  Those orders required the applicant to pay the respondents’ costs of two proceedings before this court in the sum of $5.85 million.  The costs judgment is Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited (No 2) [2012] FCA 407.

  2. As might naturally be expected, the costs judgment was subsequent to a primary judgment given by Buchanan J on 16 March 2012: Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited [2012] FCA 242. In that judgment, his Honour dismissed the two separate proceedings before the Court brought by the applicant relating to sexual discrimination and sexual harassment, allegedly by officers of the first and fourth respondents.

  3. The applicant appealed both judgments within time under the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 34.24. A notice of appeal, which was given proceeding number NSD526/2012, was filed and, in relation…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited (No 1) 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
[2013] FCA 798
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Dye and Commonwealth Securities Limited. The dispute revolved around an application for leave to appeal from the Federal Court of Australia. Dye sought to appeal a decision made by the court, and the Commonwealth Securities Limited was the respondent in this matter. The court was required to decide whether Dye should be granted leave to appeal the decision made by the Federal Court.

The legal issues that the court needed to consider were whether Dye had a reasonable prospect of success on appeal and whether the appeal raised an arguable point of law of general public importance. The court also had to assess whether the decision of the Federal Court was wrong or whether there were any errors in the proceedings that warranted an appeal. These issues were critical in determining whether Dye should be granted leave to appeal the decision.

After careful consideration, the court found that Dye did not have a reasonable prospect of success on appeal. The court held that the appeal did not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance and that the decision of the Federal Court was not wrong. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs. The court concluded that there were no valid grounds for Dye to appeal the decision, and the decision of the Federal Court should stand as it was. The court's decision was final, and Dye was not granted leave to appeal the decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed with costs.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.