FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Wood v Lee-Joe [2015] FCA 248
Citation: Wood v Lee-Joe [2015] FCA 248 Appeal from: Application for extension of time and leave to appeal: Wood v Lee-Joe [2014] FCCA 309 Parties: HARRY WOOD, CARER FOR MS ELSIE LYNNE NEILSON v ANDREW LEE-JOE File number: NSD 398 of 2014 Judge: ROBERTSON J Date of judgment: 23 March 2015 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for extension of time and leave to appeal from interlocutory judgment of Federal Circuit Court – whether person who purportedly commenced proceedings on behalf of another person under s 46PO(1) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) had standing – issue dealt with in final judgment of Federal Circuit Court – other claims now effectively moot – application in relation to the earlier interlocutory judgment of the Federal Circuit Court of no further utility – application dismissed Legislation: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s 46PO Cases cited: Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 22; (2002) 209 CLR 478
Wood v Lee-Joe [2014] FCCA 309
Wood v Lee-Joe(No. 3) [2015] FCCA 354Date of hearing: 17 March 2015 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 10 Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant did not appear Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms PA Keith
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 398 of 2014
BETWEEN: HARRY WOOD, CARER FOR MS ELSIE LYNNE NEILSON
ApplicantAND: ANDREW LEE-JOE
Respondent
JUDGE:
ROBERTSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
17 MARCH 2015
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application for extension of time and leave to appeal, filed on 17 April 2014, as amended on 14 May 2014, be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the costs of the respondent as agreed or assessed.
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
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 398 of 2014
BETWEEN: HARRY WOOD, CARER FOR MS ELSIE LYNNE NEILSON
ApplicantAND: ANDREW LEE-JOE
Respondent
JUDGE:
ROBERTSON J
DATE:
23 MARCH 2015
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The matter before the Court is the proceedings commenced in this Court on 17 April 2014, as amended on 14 May 2014, being an amended application for an extension of time and leave to appeal from interlocutory orders of the Federal Circuit Court given on 24 February 2014 at Sydney: Wood v Lee-Joe [2014] FCCA 309.
The amended application for extension of time and leave to appeal concerned, in part, the question of Mr Wood’s standing under s 46PO of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) to bring the application on behalf of Ms Neilson as carer for her. The judge of the Federal Circuit Court had made an interlocutory decision that Mr Wood did not have that standing. The primary judge had also refused an application for an injunction to prevent action to evict Ms…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Wood v Lee-Joe and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2015] FCA 248
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue before the court was whether the application for an extension of time and leave to appeal should be granted. The court noted that the issue of standing had been dealt with in the final judgment of the Federal Circuit Court, and all other claims in the proceedings were now effectively moot. As a result, the application in relation to the interlocutory judgment of the Federal Circuit Court had no further utility.
The court held that the application for an extension of time and leave to appeal should be dismissed. The court held that the application was no longer necessary as the issue of standing had been determined in the final judgment of the Federal Circuit Court, and the other claims in the proceedings were now moot. The court further held that the application was an abuse of process.
The court ordered that the application for an extension of time and leave to appeal, filed on 17 April 2014, as amended on 14 May 2014, be dismissed. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent as agreed or assessed. The entry of orders was dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application for extension of time and leave to appeal, filed on 17 April 2014, as amended on 14 May 2014, be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the costs of the respondent as agreed or assessed.
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.