FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Nasir v Reynolds (stay application) [2024] FCA 864
File number(s): VID 701 of 2024 Judgment of: WIGNEY J Date of judgment: 1 August 2024 Date of publication of reasons: 5 August 2024 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for stay of interlocutory order pending determination of application for leave to appeal – whether reasonable prospects of the grant of leave to appeal - principles in Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc [1991] 33 FCR 397 – no sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration of orders – no substantial injustice if leave refused – insufficient prospects of obtaining leave to appeal - stay application dismissed Legislation: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) ss 46PF, 46PH
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 24(1A), 37P
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 78B
Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) s 9
Cases cited: Ah-Chee v Stuart [2019] FCAFC 165
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v CG Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd (1999) 95 FCR 292
Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397 at 397
Glennan v Commissioner of Taxation [2003] 77 ALJR 1195
Hogan v Australian Crime Commission [2010] 240 CLR 651
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Rawson Finances Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2010] FCAFC 139
Division: General Division Registry: Victoria National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Number of paragraphs: 31 Date of hearing: 1 August 2024 The Applicant The Applicant did not appear Counsel for the Respondents Mr Fernon SC Solicitor for the Respondents Baker & McKenzie ORDERS
VID 701 of 2024 BETWEEN: SAJJAD NASIR
Applicant
AND: CATHRINE REYNOLDS
First Respondent
AMY MCCUDDEN
Second Respondent
ORACLE CORPORATION AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
Third Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
WIGNEY J
DATE OF ORDER:
1 AUGUST 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant’s Interlocutory Application dated 23 July 2024 (bearing the proceeding number 725 of 2024) and taken to have been filed in this proceeding on 25 July 2024 be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the hearing of the Interlocutory Application.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)WIGNEY J:
This is an application by Mr Sajjad Nasir for the stay of an interlocutory order made by another Judge in this Court, who I will refer to in these reasons as the primary judge. The essential basis of the stay application is that Mr Nasir has filed what has been taken to be an application for leave to appeal the order made by the primary judge. Mr Nasir's stay application was listed before me as duty judge as it was thought that Mr Nasir sought a stay of the interlocutory order as a matter of urgency.
Mr Nasir's stay application was initially listed for hearing before me on 30 July 2024. Mr Nasir was advised of that listing by email sent…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Nasir v Reynolds (stay application) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2024] FCA 864
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether Nasir had reasonable prospects of success in obtaining leave to appeal and whether there were sufficient grounds to warrant a reconsideration of the interlocutory order. The court considered the principles established in Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc [1991] 33 FCR 397, which outline the criteria for granting a stay pending leave to appeal. The court needed to determine if there was a sufficient doubt about the correctness of the interlocutory order, whether substantial injustice would result if the stay was not granted, and if there were reasonable prospects of the applicant obtaining leave to appeal.
The court found that Nasir did not have sufficient prospects of obtaining leave to appeal, as there was no sufficient doubt about the correctness of the interlocutory order. Additionally, the court concluded that there would be no substantial injustice if the stay was not granted, and there was no need to reconsider the interlocutory order. Based on these findings, the court dismissed the application for a stay of the interlocutory order.
The final orders of the court were that Nasir's Interlocutory Application be dismissed and that he pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the hearing of the Interlocutory Application. These orders were entered in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applicant’s Interlocutory Application dated 23 July 2024 (bearing the proceeding number 725 of 2024) and taken to have been filed in this proceeding on 25 July 2024 be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the hearing of the Interlocutory Application.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.