Manny v Australian Postal Corporation; Manny v Commonwealth; Manny v University of Canberra
Case
•
[2025] ACTCA 24
•17 July 2025
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Manny v Australian Postal Corporation; Manny v Commonwealth; Manny v University of Canberra [2025] ACTCA 24
[2025] ACTCA 24
17 July 2025
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicants, Mr. Manny, sought leave to appeal from interlocutory decisions of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The respondents were the Australian Postal Corporation, the Commonwealth, and the University of Canberra. The nature of the dispute between the parties was not detailed in the provided text.
The central legal issue before Elkaim AJ was whether leave to appeal should be granted from the interlocutory decisions made by the Supreme Court. This required the court to consider the merits of the proposed appeal and whether it had a reasonable prospect of success.
Elkaim AJ refused leave to appeal. The reasoning for this refusal was not elaborated upon in the provided text, but the outcome indicates that the applicants did not satisfy the threshold for granting leave to appeal from the interlocutory decisions. The court ultimately made orders refusing the applications for leave to appeal.
The central legal issue before Elkaim AJ was whether leave to appeal should be granted from the interlocutory decisions made by the Supreme Court. This required the court to consider the merits of the proposed appeal and whether it had a reasonable prospect of success.
Elkaim AJ refused leave to appeal. The reasoning for this refusal was not elaborated upon in the provided text, but the outcome indicates that the applicants did not satisfy the threshold for granting leave to appeal from the interlocutory decisions. The court ultimately made orders refusing the applications for leave to appeal.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Jurisdiction
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
9
Statutory Material Cited
2
Shiels v Manny
[2012] ACTCA 22
Thiess Pty Ltd v Industrial Court of New South Wales
[2010] NSWCA 252
Wishart v Fraser
[1941] HCA 8