Patton, B.W. v Minister of State for Defence & the Commonwealth of Australia

[1986] FCA 188

Ac wtll be appa ren t , m cr?er made pursuant to Q . 2 0 r . 7

would opecate as , and be a f i n a l orc?er; an Qrder made under 0 . 1 1

I.

r.16 1 s prc'perly tc be characcerzsed as Ince r locu tQry .

It 1: clear that hls Honour vas ac t ing under cI.11 r.16,

and I ?F of the , J iew t ha t , ccnsequent ly , the order was

l n t e r l o c u t o r y and r e q l l r e d 1 ~ a v e .

F;.

?JnGj, Y r . Pst ton I n his ubmlssians on the mct inn has

c a r e f u l l y referred t o P,alsbur:.'s Laws of Enqlsnd, ( 4 t h e d . ,

Vo1.25, p.238, a t p?.ragraph 505, where t3.e general proposl t ions

3 s t o t h e d i s t i n c t l o n between f m a l and mter lncutorg orders are

r e fe r r ed t o . There the l e a r n e d al.ithor :&:?S:-

5 .

Fur ther ,

di

I t follnws then that- leave is C??glred and, i n the

absence of l eave , t he ppea l 1 s incompetent. I n those

clrcumstances	I	am	c o n s t r a i n e d	t o	dlsmiss	the	appeal	as
incompetent.

9 .

c