Loevski v Australian Securities and Investment Commission

Case [2001] FCA 1157

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Loevski v Australian Securities & Investment Commission
 [2001] FCA 1157

YAKOV LOEVSKI V AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES & INVESTMENTS COMMISSION AND ANOR

MARSHALL J
MELBOURNE
6 DECEMBER 2001


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

   V 1167 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

YAKOV LOEVSKI
APPLICANT

AND:

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION
FIRST RESPONDENT

AND:

STEVEN SHERMAN
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MARSHALL J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 DECEMBER 2001

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The notice of appeal filed by the applicant on 9 November 2001 be struck out as against the second respondent.

2.The applicant pay the second respondent’s costs of the application.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

 V 1167 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

YAKOV LOEVSKI
APPLICANT

AND:

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION
FIRST RESPONDENT

AND:

STEVEN SHERMAN
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MARSHALL J

DATE:

6 DECEMBER 2001

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. A notice of motion was filed by the second respondent seeking that the notice of appeal in this matter be struck out as against that party. The relevant Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“AAT”) decision the subject of the appeal concerned a request by the applicant that the first respondent undertake a particular investigation. The applicant specifically complained that the first respondent should further investigate a particular matter. The first respondent’s failure to do so was the subject of the proceeding before the AAT. The only proper respondent to the appeal from the decision of the AAT is the first respondent.

  2. I therefore make the following orders:

    1.The notice of appeal filed by the applicant on 9 November 2001 be struck out as against the second respondent.

    2.The applicant pay the second respondent’s costs of the application.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall.

Associate:

Dated:             21 January 2002

The Applicant appeared for himself
Interpreter: Mr Mikhail Gutkin
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Australian Securities and Investment Commission
Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Baker & McKenzie
Date of Hearing: 6 December 2001
Date of Judgment: 6 December 2001
Details
AGLC
Loevski v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [2001] FCA 1157
Case
[2001] FCA 1157
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Loevski, sought to appeal a decision made by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC). ASIC was the first respondent in the case, while the second respondent was a party that had intervened in the proceedings. The crux of the dispute centred around the jurisdiction of the court to entertain an appeal against the decision of ASIC. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the court possessed the jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a decision made by ASIC. The applicant contended that the court had such jurisdiction, while the second respondent argued against it, asserting that the appeal was not properly before the court. The court was required to determine whether the appeal was validly before it and, if so, whether it had the authority to hear the appeal in the first place.

The court held that the appeal was not properly before it as the notice of appeal filed by the applicant did not correctly identify the second respondent. The court found that the notice of appeal was defective, as it did not comply with the necessary legal requirements for the appeal to be valid. Consequently, the court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. As a result, the court decided to strike out the notice of appeal filed by the applicant against the second respondent. Additionally, the court ordered that the applicant pay the costs incurred by the second respondent in relation to the application.

This decision underscores the importance of adhering to legal requirements when filing an appeal, as a failure to do so may result in the court lacking the jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Furthermore, the court's decision to strike out the notice of appeal highlights the necessity of ensuring that all parties involved in the proceedings are correctly identified in the relevant legal documents.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The notice of appeal filed by the applicant on 9 November 2001 be struck out as against the second respondent.

2. The applicant pay the second respondent’s costs of the application.

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

MARSHALL J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MARSHALL J

Full text does not contain this section.