Primary Securities Ltd v Saker

Case [2010] FCA 1471

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Primary Securities Ltd v Saker [2010] FCA 1471   

Citation: Primary Securities Ltd v Saker [2010] FCA 1471
Appeal from: Application for extension of time and leave to appeal: Saker, in the matter of Great Southern Managers Australia Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in liquidation) [2010] FCA 1080
Parties: PRIMARY SECURITIES LIMITED (ACN 089 812 635) v ANDREW SAKER, DARREN WEAVER, JAMES STEWART AND MARTIN JONES IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS LIQUIDATORS OF GREAT SOUTHERN MANAGERS AUSTRALIA LIMITED (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 083 825 405)
File number: WAD 327 of 2010
Judge: GILMOUR J
Date of judgment: 23 December 2010
Corrigendum: 17 January 2011
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – leave to appeal – application by non-party – appeal period expired – whether justiciable controversy  
Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 24(1) 511
Federal Court of Australia Act 1974 (Cth) s 24
Federal Court Rules O 52 r 15
Infertility Treatment Act 1995 (Vic) s 8(1)
Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) s 22
The Constitution s 76(i)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 30(a), 32  
Cases cited:

Australian Industry Group v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (2002) 125 FCR 529 applied

Commonwealth v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2000) 98 FCR 31 referred to
In Re Judiciary and Navigation Acts (1921) 29 CLR 257 cited
James v South Australia (1927) 40 CLR 1 cited
Re McBain; ex parte Australian Catholic Bishops (2002) 209 CLR 372 considered
Saker, in the matter of Great Southern Managers Australia Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in liquidation) [2010] FCA 1080 cited
Sen v The Queen (1991) 30 FCR 173 cited
Shields v Official Receiver in Bankruptcy (1996) 66 FCR 171 referred to

Date of hearing: 16 December 2010
Place: Perth
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 43
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr C Stokes
Solicitor for the Applicant: Chris Stokes & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr A P Young
Solicitor for the Respondent: Middletons Lawyers

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Primary Securities Ltd v Saker [2010] FCA 1471  

CORRIGENDUM

1.The words in the medium neutral citation "(Receivers and Manager appointed) (in liquidation)" should be deleted.  The heading should now read Primary Securities Ltd v Saker [2010] FCA 1471.

I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Corrigendum to the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gilmour.

Associate:

Dated:        17 January 2011


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

WAD 327 of 2010
BETWEEN:

PRIMARY SECURITIES LIMITED (ACN 089 812 635)
Applicant
AND:

ANDREW SAKER, DARREN WEAVER, JAMES STEWART AND MARTIN JONES IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS LIQUIDATORS OF GREAT SOUTHERN MANAGERS AUSTRALIA LIMITED (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 083 825 405)
Respondents

JUDGE:

GILMOUR J

DATE OF ORDER:

23 DECEMBER 2010

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The notice of motion as amended dated 4 November 2010 be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the costs of the respondents to be…

Continue reading Primary Securities Ltd v Saker

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Primary Securities Ltd v Saker [2010] FCA 1471
Case
[2010] FCA 1471
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Primary Securities Ltd as the appellant and Saker as the respondent. The dispute arose from an appeal concerning leave to appeal a decision previously made. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The respondent, Saker, had filed an application for leave to appeal after the initial appeal period had expired. The application was made by a non-party to the original proceedings, raising questions about the jurisdiction and appropriateness of such an application.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the application by Saker, a non-party, for leave to appeal was within the court's jurisdiction and whether the application constituted a justiciable controversy. The court needed to determine whether the appeal period had expired in a manner that precluded any further applications and whether the court had the authority to entertain an application from a non-party under these circumstances. Additionally, the court had to consider the procedural implications of allowing such an application and its impact on the finality of judgments.

The court held that the application by Saker was not within its jurisdiction. The appeal period had indeed expired, and the court found that allowing a non-party to apply for leave to appeal after this period would undermine the finality of judgments. The court emphasised that the primary party aggrieved by the decision had a specific timeframe to lodge an appeal and that any application by a non-party outside this period was not justiciable. The court also noted that permitting such applications could lead to unnecessary delays and complications in legal proceedings. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondents.

The final orders of the court were that the notice of motion as amended dated 4 November 2010 be dismissed and that the applicant pay the costs of the respondents, to be taxed if not agreed. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and the limitations on non-parties seeking to intervene in appellate processes.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The notice of motion as amended dated 4 November 2010 be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the costs of the respondents to be taxed if not agreed.

Note:

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.