FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Takemoto v Moody’s Investors Service Pty Limited [2014] FCA 1403
Citation:
Appeal from:
Takemoto v Moody’s Investors Service Pty Limited [2014] FCA 1403
Application for leave to appeal: Takemoto v Moody’s Investors Service Pty Limited [2014] FCA 1081
Parties: KAZUMI TAKEMOTO v MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE PTY LIMITED File number: NSD 1093 of 2014 Judge: ALLSOP CJ Date of judgment: 1 December 2014 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to appeal refused – no question of principle Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 31A
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 16.21
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)Date of hearing: 1 December 2014 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 17 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr J Berwick Solicitor for the Applicant: Craddock Murray Neumann Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Mr C Bova Solicitor for the Respondent: King & Wood Mallesons
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
FAIR WORK DIVISION
NSD 1093 of 2014
BETWEEN: KAZUMI TAKEMOTO
ApplicantAND: MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE PTY LIMITED
Respondent
JUDGE:
ALLSOP CJ
DATE OF ORDER:
1 DECEMBER 2014
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Leave be granted to the applicant to amend the interlocutory application for leave to appeal to include a prayer for leave to appeal from Order 3 of the Orders made on 28 October 2014.
2.On or before 4:00 pm on 2 December 2014, the applicant file and serve
(a)an amended application for leave to appeal; and
(b)submissions of no more than four (4) pages (without incorporation of other submissions by reference) that deal with
(i)any asserted error of the primary judge;
(ii)identification with precision what material must be examined to assess that asserted error; and
(iii)any other consideration as to why leave should be granted.
3.On or before 4:00 pm on 8 December 2014, the respondent file and serve submissions of no more than four (4) pages as to why leave should be refused.
4.Leave to appeal against Orders 1 and 2 of the Orders made on 28 October 2014 be refused.
5.The applicant pay the costs of the respondent of the interlocutory application to date.
6.The hearing of the amended application for leave to appeal be stood over to a date to be fixed in consultation by the parties jointly with the Associate to Allsop CJ.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
FAIR WORK DIVISION
NSD 1093 of 2014
BETWEEN: KAZUMI TAKEMOTO
ApplicantAND: MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE PTY LIMITED
Respondent
JUDGE:
ALLSOP CJ
DATE:
1 DECEMBER 2014
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
This is an application for leave to appeal from orders made by a judge of the court dismissing parts of a claim made by the applicant under s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). Those orders were made on 28 October 2014 giving…
Continue reading Takemoto v Moody’s Investors Service Pty Limited
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Takemoto v Moody’s Investors Service Pty Limited [2014] FCA 1403
- Case
- [2014] FCA 1403
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether there was a significant question of principle that warranted the granting of leave to appeal, and whether the applicant's application for leave was sufficiently well-founded. The court was also required to determine whether the applicant had adequately identified any errors of law made by the primary judge that necessitated appellate review.
The court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient basis for leave to appeal, as the errors asserted did not raise a question of principle or substantial injustice. The court emphasised the need for the applicant to clearly identify any alleged errors and the specific material required for the assessment of those errors. The court further noted that the application was not sufficiently precise in identifying the necessary material for review. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs incurred in relation to the interlocutory application.
The court granted the applicant leave to amend their application for leave to appeal to include a specific prayer for leave to appeal from a particular order. The court set strict timelines for the filing and serving of the amended application and accompanying submissions, ensuring that both parties complied with these deadlines. The hearing of the amended application for leave to appeal was then stood over to a date to be determined by the parties in consultation with the Associate to the Chief Justice.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Leave be granted to the applicant to amend the interlocutory application for leave to appeal to include a prayer for leave to appeal from Order 3 of the Orders made on 28 October 2014.
2. On or before 4:00 pm on 2 December 2014, the applicant file and serve
(a) an amended application for leave to appeal; and
(b) submissions of no more than four (4) pages (without incorporation of other submissions by reference) that deal with
(i) any asserted error of the primary judge;
(ii) identification with precision what material must be examined to assess that asserted error; and
(iii) any other consideration as to why leave should be granted.
3. On or before 4:00 pm on 8 December 2014, the respondent file and serve submissions of no more than four (4) pages as to why leave should be refused.
4. Leave to appeal against Orders 1 and 2 of the Orders made on 28 October 2014 be refused.
5. The applicant pay the costs of the respondent of the interlocutory application to date.
6. The hearing of the amended application for leave to appeal be stood over to a date to be fixed in consultation by the parties jointly with the Associate to Allsop CJ.
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.