Palmer v Shipton - [2025] FCA 641

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Palmer v Shipton [2025] FCA 641

Appeal from: Application for leave to appeal: Palmer v Shipton [2025] FCA 273

File numbers: VID 461 of 2025
VID 462 of 2025

Judgment of: COLVIN J

Date of judgment: 10 June 2025

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - whether application for leave to appeal should be referred to Full Court - orders made for application for leave to be referred to Full Court and for application to be heard at the same time as any appeal

Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 25

Cases cited:
Allphones Retail Pty Ltd v Weimann [2009] FCA 849

Australian Equity Investors, an Arizona Limited Partnership v Colliers International (NSW) Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1198

Ensham Resources Pty Limited v AIOI Insurance Company Limited [2012] FCA 822

Obeid v Lockley (2018) 98 NSWLR 258

Division: General Division

Registry: Victoria

National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations

Sub-area: Regulator and Consumer Protection

Number of paragraphs: 8

Date of hearing: 10 June 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: Mr P Dunning KC with Mr K Byrne and Ms S Gaussen

Solicitor for the Appellants: Alexander Law

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms K Foley SC with Mr A Petridis

Solicitor for the Respondent: Norton Rose Fulbright Australia

ORDERS

VID 461 of 2025

BETWEEN:
CLIVE FREDERICK PALMER

Appellant

AND:
JAMES SHIPTON

Respondent

VID 462 of 2025

BETWEEN:
PALMER LEISURE COOLUM PTY LTD (ACN 146 828 122)

Appellant

AND:
JAMES SHIPTON

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

COLVIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 JUNE 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to s 25(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) the application for leave to appeal be heard and determined by a Full Court.
2.Subject to any contrary direction by the Full Court, the application for leave to appeal is to be heard at the same time as any appeal.
3.The costs of today's hearing be costs in the application for leave to appeal.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from the transcript)
COLVIN J:

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has brought complaints against Mr Clive Palmer and Palmer Leisure Coolum Pty Ltd, charging them with contravening the takeover provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Mr Palmer and PLC seek to maintain allegations of misfeasance in public office against the former chairperson of ASIC, Mr James Shipton. They allege that officers of the takeover target entity improperly influenced ASIC’s actions concerning matters relating to the commencement of the prosecution.
Mr Palmer and PLC rely in particular upon a letter sent by Mr Palmer to Mr Shipton raising concerns about the alleged conduct of officers of ASIC. A response to the letter was provided to Mr Palmer, but no further action was taken by ASIC. Mr Palmer and PLC allege that Mr Shipton's role in relation to the response to the letter and in allegedly causing, supervising or directing the filing of the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Palmer v Shipton

Details

AGLC: Palmer v Shipton [2025] FCA 641
Case: [2025] FCA 641
Decision Date: 10 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Palmer v Shipton involved an application for leave to appeal a decision made by a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant, Palmer, sought to appeal a decision that was made in a proceeding concerning the interpretation of a contract. The respondent, Shipton, argued against the application for leave to appeal and the referral of the application to a Full Court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the application for leave to appeal should be referred to a Full Court of the Federal Court, as requested by Palmer, or if it should be determined by the single judge who had originally heard the case. This issue raised questions about the appropriate procedure for appeals and the allocation of judicial resources within the Federal Court.

The court determined that the application for leave to appeal should indeed be referred to a Full Court. This decision was based on the principle that a Full Court is better equipped to address the complexities of appeals, particularly in cases where the interpretation of legal principles and the application of precedent are significant. The court also noted that having the application for leave to appeal heard at the same time as any potential appeal would streamline the judicial process and avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. Consequently, the court made orders referring the application for leave to appeal to a Full Court and directing that it be heard concurrently with any appeal, if one were to be granted.

The court further ordered that the costs of the hearing be included in the costs of the application for leave to appeal. This decision aimed to ensure that the financial implications of the proceedings were managed in a manner that reflected the interests of justice and the efficient use of judicial resources. The orders made by the court were in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to s 25(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) the application for leave to appeal be heard and determined by a Full Court.

2. Subject to any contrary direction by the Full Court, the application for leave to appeal is to be heard at the same time as any appeal.

3. The costs of today's hearing be costs in the application for leave to appeal.

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.

Appeal from:	Application for leave to appeal: Palmer v Shipton [2025] FCA 273
File numbers:	VID 461 of 2025 VID 462 of 2025
Judgment of:	COLVIN J
Date of judgment:	10 June 2025
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - whether application for leave to appeal should be referred to Full Court - orders made for application for leave to be referred to Full Court and for application to be heard at the same time as any appeal
Legislation:	Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 25
Cases cited:	Allphones Retail Pty Ltd v Weimann [2009] FCA 849 Australian Equity Investors, an Arizona Limited Partnership v Colliers International (NSW) Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1198 Ensham Resources Pty Limited v AIOI Insurance Company Limited [2012] FCA 822 Obeid v Lockley (2018) 98 NSWLR 258
Division:	General Division
Registry:	Victoria
National Practice Area:	Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area:	Regulator and Consumer Protection
Number of paragraphs:	8
Date of hearing:	10 June 2025
Counsel for the Appellants:	Mr P Dunning KC with Mr K Byrne and Ms S Gaussen
Solicitor for the Appellants:	Alexander Law
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms K Foley SC with Mr A Petridis
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Norton Rose Fulbright Australia

ORDER MADE BY:	COLVIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	10 JUNE 2025