Kassiou v Heard (Liquidator)

Kassiou and others appealed against a judgment of the Federal Court of Australia concerning the scope of examinations and production of documents under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The respondents argued that the judgment was interlocutory and thus required leave to appeal. This matter involved interpreting the scope of examinations and related orders under the Corporations Act, as well as the procedural question of whether leave to appeal was required and whether the application for leave should be referred to a Full Court for hearing and determination.

The court was required to decide whether the judgment was interlocutory and if leave to appeal was needed. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the application for leave to appeal and the question of whether leave was required should be referred to a Full Court. The primary issues hinged on the interpretation of the relevant statutes and case law, particularly focusing on the distinction between final and interlocutory judgments and the policy behind requiring leave to appeal.

The court concluded that the judgment of the primary judge was indeed interlocutory and that leave to appeal was required. The court found that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed, as the applicants had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant such leave. The court also dismissed the application for referral to a Full Court, stating that the issues at hand did not require the resolution by three judges. The reasoning emphasised the importance of the policy behind the requirement for leave to appeal and the sensible exercise of discretion in granting such leave.

The court dismissed the amended application for leave to appeal filed on 5 April 2017, and entry of orders was dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.