FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Nyoni v Chee Koon Hee [2013] FCA 1120
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
| Applicant | |
AND: | First Respondent DEVESH SHETH Second Respondent FRANK PECZKA Third Respondent DARREN FRIEND Fourth Respondent RAYMOND GRIFFITHS Fifth Respondent ANDREW VAN BALLEGOOYEN Sixth Respondent CK CHEE PTY LTD Seventh Respondent ALLEASING PTY LTD Eighth Respondent CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF HEALTH WA Ninth Respondent JULIAN MURPHY Tenth Respondent SHIRE OF KELLERBERRIN Eleventh Respondent THERESA BEECH Twelfth Respondent |
DATE OF ORDER: | |
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The notice of appeal be treated as an application for leave to appeal.
2. The application for leave to appeal is to be allocated to a docket judge.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
GENERAL DIVISION | WAD 382 of 2013 |
BETWEEN: | EMSON NYONI Applicant
|
AND: | CHEE KOON HEE First Respondent DEVESH SHETH Second Respondent FRANK PECZKA Third Respondent DARREN FRIEND Fourth Respondent RAYMOND GRIFFITHS Fifth Respondent ANDREW VAN BALLEGOOYEN Sixth Respondent CK CHEE PTY LTD Seventh Respondent ALLEASING PTY LTD Eighth Respondent CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF HEALTH WA Ninth Respondent JULIAN MURPHY Tenth Respondent SHIRE OF KELLERBERRIN Eleventh Respondent THERESA BEECH Twelfth Respondent
|
JUDGE: | SIOPIS J |
DATE: | 23 OCTOBER 2013 |
PLACE: | PERTH |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 There is before me in the callover list for the appeal sittings for the Full Court for February and March 2014, a notice of appeal filed by Mr Nyoni. The notice of appeal purports to appeal from the decision of Gilmour J which dismissed, pursuant to s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), the claims made by Mr Nyoni against the 12 respondents on the basis that the claims had no reasonable prospects of success (Nyoni v Chee Koon Hee (No 4) [2013] FCA 948). The decision was handed down on 18 September 2013. Mr Nyoni filed his notice of appeal on 9 October 2013.
2 On 22 October 2013, the third, fourth and fifth respondents filed a notice of objection to competency in respect of Mr Nyoni’s appeal and the other respondents followed suit. The objections to competency all make the same point, namely, that the decision of Gilmour J was interlocutory, that no leave to appeal from that decision has been obtained and so the appeal was incompetent. I have been told from the bar table that shortly after the solicitors for some of the respondents were served with the notice of appeal, they advised Mr Nyoni that he needed to obtain leave to appeal before he could file his notice of appeal.
3 Mr Nyoni has advised me that he has paid a filing fee in relation to the notice of appeal. Counsel for the respondents, however, have submitted that if I was minded to order that Mr Nyoni’s notice of appeal be treated as an application for leave to appeal, that the application for leave to appeal should not be listed before a Full Court on the basis that the application for leave to appeal and the appeal be heard at the same time. In my view, that is the appropriate course to adopt.
4 The judgment of Gilmour J is interlocutory in nature. Therefore, Mr Nyoni was required to obtain leave to appeal and leave was not obtained. It follows that the notice of appeal is incompetent.
5 Because Mr Nyoni has paid a filing fee in relation to the notice of appeal, I am content to order that the notice of appeal be treated as an application for leave to appeal. However, the consequence for Mr Nyoni of Gilmour J’s judgment being interlocutory is that Mr Nyoni was pursuant to r 35.13 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, required to file the application for leave to appeal within 14 days of the delivery of the judgment. As mentioned, Mr Nyoni filed his notice of appeal on 9 October 2013. Therefore, insofar as Mr Nyoni’s application is to be treated as an application for leave to appeal, it has been filed out of time. It will, therefore, be necessary for Mr Nyoni to file a further application applying for an extension of time within which to bring his application for leave to appeal against the decision of Gilmour J.
6 It will be up to Mr Nyoni as to whether and when he makes an application for an extension of time. However, if Mr Nyoni has not filed an application for an extension of time by the time of the hearing of the application for leave to appeal, undoubtedly the point will be taken against him, with the likely consequence that Mr Nyoni’s application for leave to appeal would be dismissed on that ground.
7 I will order that this matter be removed from the callover list. The matter will then be returned to the Registry so that it can be allocated to a docket judge to hear the application for leave to appeal in due course.
I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Siopis. |
Associate:
