DONALD FULLER v STEPHEN NORMAN TOMS, CHARLES ERNEST BRIGHT, BRETT HEADING, PHILLIP TOYNE, AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COMPANY LIMITED , DONALD JOHN MACKAY, STEPHEN EDWARD LONIE, PETER HUGHES, NICHOLAS BURTON-TAYLOR, CHRISTOPHER IVAN ROBERTS, ARUNAS POVILAS PALIULIS, ABDUL SAMAD BIN HAJI, DATO' SABRI AHMAD, DONALD GORDON MCGAUCHIE, DAVID DICKSON FARLEY, J WHITEMAN, KERRIE PARKER, JULIA SLOMAN, PHILIP BEALE, DAVID R CONNOLLY, TROY SETTER, ELDERS LIMITED (FORMERLY FUTURIS CORPORATION LIMITED), STEPHEN GERLACH, LESLIE PETER WOZNICZKA, MALCOLM GEOFFREY JACKMAN, THOMAS BODLEY KEENE, STUART ALEXANDER BLACK and DAVID CHARLES CROMBIE
File number:
WAD 99 of 2014
Judges:
BESANKO, LOGAN AND MCKERRACHER JJ
Date of judgment:
26 June 2015
Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Part VAAA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (Federal Court Act) – applicant seeking to appeal vexatious proceedings order – s 37AO(2) and s 37AM of the Federal Court Act – whether applicant entitled to appeal as of right against vexatious proceeding order – whether grounds of appeal have merit – inadequacies in applicant’s manner of pleading – importance of finality in exercise of judicial power – application for leave to file notice of appeal dismissed
Counsel for the First to Eleventh and Fourteenth to Twenty-Eighth Respondents:
MR K Barlow QC
Solicitor for the First to Eleventh and Fourteenth to Twenty-Eighth Respondents:
King & Wood Mallesons
Council for the Twelfth and Thirteenth Respondents:
The Twelfth and Thirteenth Respondents did not appear
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
WAD 99 of 2014
BETWEEN:
DONALD FULLER Applicant
AND:
STEPHEN NORMAN TOMS First Respondent
CHARLES ERNEST BRIGHT Second Respondent
BRETT HEADING Third Respondent
PHILLIP TOYNE Fourth Respondent
AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COMPANY LIMITED Fifth Respondent
DONALD JOHN MACKAY Sixth Respondent
STEPHEN EDWARD LONIE
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.
Continue reading Fuller v Toms
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Fuller v Toms [2015] FCAFC 91
Case
[2015] FCAFC 91
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Fuller v Toms, the applicant sought leave to appeal an order made under Part VAAA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (Federal Court Act). The primary dispute revolved around the interpretation and application of sections 37AO(2) and 37AM of the Federal Court Act, specifically concerning whether the applicant was entitled to appeal as of right against an order for vexatious proceedings. The case was heard by the Federal Court.
The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the Federal Court Act's provisions regarding appeals against orders for vexatious proceedings. The court needed to determine whether the applicant had the right to appeal and whether the grounds for appeal had any merit. Additionally, the court examined the inadequacies in the applicant's pleadings and the importance of finality in judicial decisions.
The court found that the applicant's appeal was not entitled to proceed as of right due to inadequacies in the manner in which the applicant had pleaded their case. The court emphasised the importance of finality in judicial decisions and held that the applicant's grounds for appeal did not demonstrate a sufficient merit to warrant an appeal. Consequently, the application for leave to file a notice of appeal was dismissed. The court also ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the respondents associated with the application, to be taxed if not agreed.
The orders of the court included the dismissal of the application for leave to appeal and the direction that the applicant pay specified costs to the respondents. The specific details of the costs order are governed by Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application for leave to file a notice of appeal so as to start an appeal against Order 3 of the orders made by the Court in proceeding WAD 332 of 2012 on 19 December 2013 is dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the 1st, 2nd, 4th to 7th, 9th, 10th, and 14th to 23rd and 25th to 28th respondents’ costs of and incidental to the application, to be taxed if not agreed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.