Public Transport Corporation v Waters
Case
•
[1990] HCATrans 40
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Public Transport Corporation v Waters [1990] HCATrans 40
[1990] HCATrans 40
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Public Transport Corporation sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a judgment of Mr Justice Cummins. The respondents were P. Waters and others. The application for special leave was brought before the High Court on 9 March 1990.
The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether to grant an adjournment of the special leave application. The applicant sought this adjournment because the application was considered premature, pending a ruling by the Equal Opportunity Board on a related matter. The applicant indicated that if the Board ruled in a particular way, the special leave application might become redundant. The Court also considered the limited avenues of appeal from the decision of Mr Justice Cummins, noting that the Magistrates' Courts Act did not permit an appeal from a single judge of the Supreme Court to the Full Court in this instance.
The Court, acknowledging that the adjournment was consented to by the respondents, granted the application. The Chief Justice noted that the matter had been read and understood by the Court. The applicant agreed to pay the respondents' costs occasioned by the adjournment. The matter was subsequently adjourned to the next special leave day, 8 June 1990.
The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether to grant an adjournment of the special leave application. The applicant sought this adjournment because the application was considered premature, pending a ruling by the Equal Opportunity Board on a related matter. The applicant indicated that if the Board ruled in a particular way, the special leave application might become redundant. The Court also considered the limited avenues of appeal from the decision of Mr Justice Cummins, noting that the Magistrates' Courts Act did not permit an appeal from a single judge of the Supreme Court to the Full Court in this instance.
The Court, acknowledging that the adjournment was consented to by the respondents, granted the application. The Chief Justice noted that the matter had been read and understood by the Court. The applicant agreed to pay the respondents' costs occasioned by the adjournment. The matter was subsequently adjourned to the next special leave day, 8 June 1990.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Jurisdiction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Standing
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0