Luck v Hunter

Case [2000] FCA 1957

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Luck v Hunter [2000] FCA 1957

GAYE LUCK (FORMERLY KUPERMAN) v DR ROSS HUNTER, R B HUNTER (MEDICAL) PTY LTD ACN 088 496 995, NOCDOC, DR D MCALPINE, AITKENVALE MEDICAL CENTRE PTY LTD ACN 011 003 231, DR PETER BUCHANAN, DR HENRY LAU, CONSULTANT PATHOLOGISTS (TOWNSVILLE) PTY LTD ACN 010 106 680, DR GRANT WITHEY AND QUEENSLAND X-RAY SERVICES BN 3332160

V 392 OF 2000

DOWSETT J
7 DECEMBER 2000
BRISBANE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 392 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

GAYE LUCK (FORMERLY KUPERMAN)
APPLICANT

AND:

DR ROSS HUNTER
FIRST RESPONDENT

R B HUNTER (MEDICAL) PTY LTD ACN 088 496 995
SECOND RESPONDENT

NOCDOC
THIRD RESPONDENT

DR D MCALPINE
FOURTH RESPONDENT

AITKENVALE MEDICAL CENTRE PTY LTD ACN 011 003 231
FIFTH RESPONDENT

DR PETER BUCHANAN
SIXTH RESPONDENT

DR HENRY LAU
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

CONSULTANT PATHOLOGISTS (TOWNSVILLE) PTY LTD ACN 010 106 680
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

DR GRANT WITHEY
NINTH RESPONDENT

QUEENSLAND X-RAY SERVICES BN3332160
TENTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

DOWSETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 DECEMBER 2000

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant’s notice of motion for leave to appeal filed 20 November 2000 be struck out.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the notice of motion for leave to appeal.

3.        The applicant’s notice of motion for a stay filed 3 November 2000 be struck out.

4.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the notice of motion for a stay.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 392 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

GAYE LUCK (FORMERLY KUPERMAN)
APPLICANT

AND:

DR ROSS HUNTER
FIRST RESPONDENT

R B HUNTER (MEDICAL) PTY LTD ACN 088 496 995
SECOND RESPONDENT

NOCDOC
THIRD RESPONDENT

DR D MCALPINE
FOURTH RESPONDENT

AITKENVALE MEDICAL CENTRE PTY LTD ACN 011 003 231
FIFTH RESPONDENT

DR PETER BUCHANAN
SIXTH RESPONDENT

DR HENRY LAU
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

CONSULTANT PATHOLOGISTS (TOWNSVILLE) PTY LTD ACN 010 106 680
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

DR GRANT WITHEY
NINTH RESPONDENT

QUEENSLAND X-RAY SERVICES BN3332160
TENTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

DOWSETT J

DATE:

7 DECEMBER 2000

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. I am now dealing with the motions in action V 392 of 2000.  There are two separate notices of motion, one filed on 3 November 2000 seeking a stay and the other filed on 20 November seeking leave to appeal.  It seems to me that with regard to the latter, similar considerations apply as in the earlier matters.  The notice of motion should therefore be struck out with costs.  The notice of motion for a stay should be similarly struck out with costs.

I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.

Associate:

Dated:            22 February 2001

There was no appearance for the Applicant:
Counsel for the First, Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Respondents: Mr R Traves
Solicitor for the First, Second, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Respondents: Tress Cocks & Maddox
Solicitor for the Fifth Respondent: Boulton Cleary & Kern
Date of Hearing: 7 December 2000
Date of Judgment: 7 December 2000
Details
AGLC
Luck v Hunter [2000] FCA 1957
Case
[2000] FCA 1957
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Luck, a litigant, filed an appeal against the decision made by Hunter, a judge, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appeal was dismissed by Hunter, leading Luck to file a notice of motion for leave to appeal and a notice of motion for a stay. Hunter subsequently struck out these notices and ordered Luck to pay the costs incurred by the respondent.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's notice of motion for leave to appeal and notice of motion for a stay were valid and should be considered. The court needed to assess whether these notices met the necessary legal requirements and if they provided sufficient grounds for appeal or a stay of proceedings.

In delivering the judgment, the court concluded that the notices were deficient and did not meet the necessary legal standards. The court found that the notices did not provide sufficient grounds for appeal or a stay of proceedings. Consequently, the notices were struck out, and Luck was ordered to pay the costs incurred by the respondent. The court’s reasoning emphasised the importance of adhering to legal procedures and providing adequate justification for any requests for appeal or stay.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant’s notice of motion for leave to appeal filed 20 November 2000 be struck out.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the notice of motion for leave to appeal.

3. The applicant’s notice of motion for a stay filed 3 November 2000 be struck out.

4. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the notice of motion for a stay.

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

DOWSETT J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: DOWSETT J

Full text does not contain this section.