Parthy v Grow MF Pty Ltd

Case [2024] FCA 96

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Parthy v Grow MF Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 96

Appeal from: Application for leave to appeal Orders of Justice McElwaine made on 3 November 2023
File number(s): VID 966 of 2023
Judgment of: HESPE J
Date of judgment: 16 February 2024
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – leave to appeal – application for leave to appeal order relating to practice and procedure
Cases cited:

Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc [1981] HCA 39; (1981) 148 CLR 170

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Miraki [2022] FCAFC 96

Goodwin v HBCA Pty Ltd [2022] FCAFC 166

Hogan v Australian Crime Commission [2010] HCA 21; (2010) 240 CLR 651

House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499

Melbourne City Investments Pty Ltd v Treasury Wine Estates Ltd [2017] FCAFC 98; (2017) 252 FCR 1

Nationwide News Pty Limited v Rush [2018] FCAFC 70

Parthy v Grow MF Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1037
Division: General Division
Registry: Victoria
National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations
Number of paragraphs: 19
Date of hearing: 15 February 2024
Counsel for the Applicant The Applicant appeared in person

 

ORDERS

VID 966 of 2023
BETWEEN:

ANINDHA PARTHY

Applicant
AND:

GROW MF PTY LTD

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

HESPE J

DATE OF ORDER:

16 FEBRUARY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for leave be dismissed.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HESPE J:

  1. Before the Court is an application by Mr Parthy for leave to appeal orders made by the primary judge on 3 November 2023.

  2. Based on the submissions filed with the Court and the hearing of the application, it became apparent that the order which Mr Parthy seeks to appeal is:

    The matter is set down for an in-person hearing on 24, 25 and 26 June 2024, commencing at 10.15 am in Melbourne.

  3. The aspects of the order which Mr Parthy seeks to appeal are:

    (a)The length of time for which the matter has been set down for hearing.  Mr Parthy claims three days is inadequate given he is self-represented and will require every step to be explained to him in detail during the hearing and given Mr Parthy’s view that the evidence is complex.

    (b)The requirement that the hearing be in person in Melbourne.  Mr Parthy claims that the requirement to attend in person in Melbourne causes him prejudice because financial constraints make travel to Melbourne from Sydney (where he currently resides), unaffordable, taking into account travel and accommodation.

  4. Mr Parthy represented himself at the hearing of the application for leave.  The respondent did not appear at the hearing of this application and has not filed any submissions.

  5. The general background to the proceedings before the primary judge is set out in Parthy v Grow MF Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1037 at [3]–[7].

  6. The order from which leave to appeal is sought is an order of practice…

Continue reading Parthy v Grow MF Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Parthy v Grow MF Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 96
Case
[2024] FCA 96
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Parthy was the appellant in this case, contesting a decision made by Grow MF Pty Ltd, the respondent, in the Federal Court of Australia. The crux of the dispute revolved around the application for leave to appeal an order concerning practice and procedure. The appellant sought to challenge the lower court's ruling on specific procedural matters, which had implications for the broader legal process. The respondent opposed the application, asserting that the appeal lacked merit and that the procedural order was correctly decided.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant leave to appeal. The court needed to evaluate the merits of the procedural order and determine if the appellant had identified any errors of law that warranted a higher court's review. The court also considered whether the appeal would serve a useful purpose or if it was merely a reiteration of arguments already decided by the lower court.

After thorough deliberation, the court found that the appellant had not provided a compelling case for leave to appeal. The court determined that the procedural order was appropriately made and that the grounds for appeal did not meet the necessary threshold. The arguments presented did not sufficiently demonstrate any errors of law or procedural missteps that would justify a review by the higher court. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court's decision was in line with the principles that govern the grant of leave to appeal, focusing on the necessity for the appeal to address significant legal issues or errors.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave be dismissed.

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.