Gomez v Justice MOSHINSKY

GOMEZ
v
JUSTICE MOSHINSKY & ORS
[2019] HCASL 305
M41/2019

The applicant seeks leave to appeal from the judgment and orders of Keane J dismissing the applicant's application for orders staying the proceedings and orders of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia in Carrafa v Gomez [No 3] [2016] FCCA 3139 and of the Federal Court of Australia in Carrafa v Gomez (Trustee) [2018] FCA 201, and for other associated and incidental relief.
There is no reason to doubt the correctness of Keane J's judgment and orders. An appeal to the Full Court of this Court would enjoy no prospect of success.
Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

G.A.A Nettle J.J Edelman

11 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Gomez v Justice Moshinsky, the applicant sought leave to appeal the judgment and orders of Keane J. The applicant was contesting the dismissal of their application for orders to stay the proceedings in Carrafa v Gomez [No 3] and Carrafa v Gomez (Trustee), and to seek other associated and incidental relief. The court was tasked with determining whether the appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court would have any prospect of success.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was the correctness of Keane J's judgment and orders. The court had to consider whether there were any grounds to doubt the accuracy of the lower court's decisions and whether an appeal to the Full Court would be likely to succeed. The court carefully reviewed the arguments presented and assessed the evidence provided in the case.

After thorough deliberation, the court concluded that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of Keane J's judgment and orders. The court found that an appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court would not have a reasonable prospect of success. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the court directed the Registrar to prepare the necessary order in accordance with the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth). The decision was signed and sealed by Nettle and Edelman on 11 September 2019.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established