FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Edwards v Giles George Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 822
Appeal from: Orders 1 and 2 of orders made by Wigney J on 30 January 2025 in NSD 129 of 2022
Orders 5(a) and 5(b) of orders made by Wigney J on 18 February 2025 in NSD 129 of 2022
File number(s): NSD 294 of 2025 Judgment of: PERRY J Date of judgment: 18 July 2025 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where applicant’s former solicitors in defamation proceedings claimed an equitable lien over a lump sum costs amount payable to the applicant – where primary judge made orders permitting the applicant’s former solicitors to intervene and for payment of the lump sum amount into court so as to maintain the status quo pending final determination of the solicitors’ application for a declaration of an equitable lien - applications for extension of time and leave to appeal from these interlocutory orders dismissed Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rr 35.13(a) and 35.18
Legal Profession Uniform Law(NSW), ss 6(1), 170(1)(a), 170(2)(a), and 178(1)(c)
Cases cited: Bechara v Bates [2018] FCA 460
Bilson (A Pseudonym) v Dominic Esposito Solicitors [2019] VSC 801
BZACZ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] FCA 1230
Décor Corp Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc [1991] FCA 844; (1991) 33 FCR 397
Edwards v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited (No 5) [2024] FCA 422
Firth v Centrelink [2002] NSWSC 564; (2002) 55 NSWLR 451
Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen [1984] FCA 176; (1984) 3 FCR 344
Macura v Sarasevic (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 1621
Peczalski v Comcare [1999] FCA 366; (1999) 58 ALD 697
QGC Pty Limited v Alberts (No 4) [2022] FCA 1590
Tu’uta Katoa v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] HCA 28; (2022) 276 CLR 579
Division: General Division Registry: New South Wales National Practice Area: Other Federal Jurisdiction Number of paragraphs: 42 Date of last submission/s: 24 June 2025 Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Solicitor for the Applicant The Applicant was self-represented. Counsel for the Respondent Michelle Castle Solicitor for the Respondent Joseph Rose of Rose Legal Costing Pty Ltd ORDERS
NSD 294 of 2025 BETWEEN: GINA EDWARDS
Applicant
AND: GILES GEORGE PTY LTD
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
PERRY J
DATE OF ORDER:
18 JULY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal are dismissed.
2.The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs as agreed or assessed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
PERRY J:
1. INTRODUCTION
The applicant, Ms Gina Edwards, a barrister, successfully sued Nine Network Australia Pty Limited and…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Edwards v Giles George Pty Ltd 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] FCA 822
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved the appropriate exercise of the court's discretion in relation to the grant of an extension of time and leave to appeal from interlocutory orders. The court was required to assess whether the applicant's proposed grounds of appeal had reasonable prospects of success and whether it was in the interests of justice to grant the relief sought. In considering these issues, the court applied principles of appellate practice and procedure, as well as relevant authorities on the exercise of discretion in relation to interlocutory orders.
In dismissing the applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal, the court found that the proposed grounds of appeal had no reasonable prospects of success. The court held that the primary judge had appropriately exercised his discretion in making the interlocutory orders and that there was no basis for interfering with those orders on appeal. The court also considered that it was not in the interests of justice to grant the relief sought, given the absence of reasonable prospects of success and the potential for further delay and expense. The court therefore dismissed the applications and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs.
The orders made by the court were that the applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal were dismissed, and that the applicant was to pay the respondent's costs as agreed or assessed. The court noted that entry of orders was dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal are dismissed.
2. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs as agreed or assessed.
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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.