FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

Loevski v Australian Securities & Investment Commission

 [2001] FCA 1157


YAKOV LOEVSKI V AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES & INVESTMENTS COMMISSION AND ANOR


MARSHALL J

MELBOURNE

6 DECEMBER 2001


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

   V 1167 OF 2001

 

BETWEEN:

YAKOV LOEVSKI

APPLICANT

 

AND:

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION

FIRST RESPONDENT

 

AND:

STEVEN SHERMAN

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MARSHALL J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 DECEMBER 2001

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

 

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

 

1.                  The notice of appeal filed by the applicant on 9 November 2001 be struck out as against the second respondent.

2.                  The applicant pay the second respondent’s costs of the application.


Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

 V 1167 OF 2001

 

BETWEEN:

YAKOV LOEVSKI

APPLICANT

 

AND:

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION

FIRST RESPONDENT

 

AND:

STEVEN SHERMAN

SECOND RESPONDENT

 

JUDGE:

MARSHALL J

DATE:

6 DECEMBER 2001

PLACE:

MELBOURNE


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT


1                     A notice of motion was filed by the second respondent seeking that the notice of appeal in this matter be struck out as against that party. The relevant Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“AAT”) decision the subject of the appeal concerned a request by the applicant that the first respondent undertake a particular investigation. The applicant specifically complained that the first respondent should further investigate a particular matter. The first respondent’s failure to do so was the subject of the proceeding before the AAT. The only proper respondent to the appeal from the decision of the AAT is the first respondent.

2                     I therefore make the following orders:

1.                  The notice of appeal filed by the applicant on 9 November 2001 be struck out as against the second respondent.

2.                  The applicant pay the second respondent’s costs of the application.


I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall.



Associate:


Dated:              21 January 2002



The Applicant appeared for himself

 



Interpreter:

Mr Mikhail Gutkin



Solicitor for the First Respondent:

Australian Securities and Investment Commission



Solicitor for the Second Respondent:

Baker & McKenzie



Date of Hearing:

6 December 2001



Date of Judgment:

6 December 2001