dismissinu with costs the application €or leave to appeal, and the appeal from the refusal by Fisher J. of the application made
to him for leave to appeal. stating that reasons
muld be
delivered later. We now qive our reasons.
2.
The application before the Court was in form one
€or
leave to appeal aaainst an interlocutory decision of Fisher J. respecting discovery of documents in a proceedina commenced by
the
appellant
under
the
Administrative
Decisions
(Judicial
Review) kct,
1977. His
Honour had made a limited order
f o r
discovery at the instance
OP the appellant, but
a wider nrde'r vas
souqht. The appellant applied to Fisher J.
for leave to appeal
to
the F u l l
Cnurt. but,for reasons he then qave. his
Honour
refused that apelication. The renewed application
€or learie was
described as an application "de novo" to this Court and this
accords with the terms of the document €iled. We %ere
asked, in .
the alternative. to treat the application as
an
appeal aaainst
-
the refusal
to qrant leave. This last-mentioned course was not
opposed and
we have treated. this second application as beinu
before us.
The respondent has objected
to competency in respect of
both applications.
:
1
1
The application to %he Full
Court for leave to Ippeal
'I
' I
was made in reliance
on sub-secn. 24 (1-1) of the F;.rlcral
P l t r t o€
Australia Act L976:
'1
' l
" ( 1 A )
An
appeal shall
not be brouuht from a fudgnnnt
referred to in sub-section
(1) that is an interlocutorp
judument unless the
Court, or a Judqe uives leave
to
appeal".
This sub-section was inserted
by Act No. 72 of 1984. At
I *
!
3.
.
.-
B .
...
the same time the previous sub-secn.
25(2 ) was
omitted and the
followinu sub-section suhstitutcd
€or it:
" ( 2 ) Applications for leave
or special leave to appeal
to the Court
or for an extension of time within whish to
institute an appeal may be heard and determined by
a
single Judge or by a Full Court and the Rules
of Court
may provide for enablinu such applications to
be dealt
Details
AGLC
Reid v Nairn [1985] FCA 245
Case
[1985] FCA 245
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Reid v Nairn, the appellant, Christopher Kidman Reid, sought an appeal against an interlocutory order made by Fisher J in the Federal Court of Australia. The order related to a discovery application in proceedings initiated by Reid under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. Fisher J had granted a limited discovery order, which Reid sought to expand. Reid's application for leave to appeal against Fisher J's refusal to grant a wider discovery order was also dismissed. The primary legal issues before the Full Court were whether a further application for leave to appeal could be made to the Full Court and whether an appeal could be made against the refusal to grant special leave to appeal. The Court held that while an application for leave to appeal can be made to a single judge or the Full Court, once a single judge has made a decision on such an application, there is no further application that can be made to the Full Court. The Court found that the application for leave to appeal and the appeal from the refusal to grant leave were both incompetent, and dismissed them with costs. The Court found no error in Fisher J's interlocutory order for discovery, and noted that discovery will not be ordered for the purpose of "fishing" or in the administration of criminal justice. The Court further held that interlocutory decisions on practice and procedure are rarely interfered with by appellate courts. The Full Court ordered that Reid pay the costs of the application and appeal to Nairn.