Finch v The Heat Group Pty Ltd

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Finch v The Heat Group Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 315

File number:

VID 243 of 2016
VID 73 of 2015

Judge:

PAGONE J

Date of judgment:

24 March 2016

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory application seeking stay of orders of Federal Court of Australia – principles relevant to a stay – order amended – application otherwise dismissed

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory application seeking stay of orders of Federal Court of Australia – request for extension of time – reasons for decision sought – application dismissed

Cases cited:

Flight Centre Pty Ltd v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission [2014] FCA 658

Date of hearing:

24 March 2016

Registry:

Victoria

Division:

General Division

National Practice Area:

Commercial and Corporations

Sub-area:

Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance

Category:

Catchwords

Number of paragraphs:

7

Counsel for the Applicant:

The applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr M Felman

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Minter Ellison

ORDERS

VID 243 of 2016

BETWEEN:

JO-ANNE FINCH

Applicant

AND:

THE HEAT GROUP PTY LTD

Respondent

JUDGE:	PAGONE J
DATE OF ORDER:	24 MARCH 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Order 5 of the orders made by Jessup J on 4 March 2016 be amended by deleting the word “thereupon” in the last line and adding to it the words “at the hearing of the application for leave to appeal, unless otherwise ordered,”.

2.The application otherwise be dismissed.

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

ORDERS

VID 73 of 2015

BETWEEN:

JO-ANNE FINCH

Applicant

AND:

THE HEAT GROUP PTY LTD (ACN 092 941 430)

First Respondent

GILLIAN FRANKLIN

Second Respondent

PETER KADLECIK

Third Respondent

ADAM WHITE
Fourth Respondent

JOHN SIMCOCKS
Fifth Respondent

DARREN SCOTTI
Sixth Respondent

JUDGE:	PAGONE J
DATE OF ORDER:	24 MARCH 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)

PAGONE J:

1. In proceeding VID 243 of 2016 the applicant, Jo-Anne Finch, filed an interlocutory application seeking a stay of the orders made by Jessup J on 4 March 2016.  In that proceeding, his Honour set out his reasons in 122 paragraphs and 32 pages for the orders made on 4 March 2016.  The principles relevant to whether a stay should be granted in such application as that made by Ms Finch are set out in Flight Centre Pty Ltd v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission [2014] FCA 658 where Rangiah J said at [9]:

   (a)There is an onus on the applicant to demonstrate a proper basis for a stay that will be fair to all parties.

   (b)There is a prima facie assumption that the judgment appealed from is correct.

   (c)There is a prima facie assumption that the Court should not deprive a litigant of the benefit of a judgment in its favour.

   (d)The Court has a broad discretion as to whether to…