Hamod v NSW

(2002) 188 ALR 659; [2002] FCAFC 97

Full Court of the Federal Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeals
3. › Interlocutory judgments
4. › Leave to appeal
5. › Whether notice of appeal filed without leave to appeal from interlocutory judgment is competent
6. › Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 24(1A)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeals
3. › Extension of time
4. › Application to extend time to seek leave to appeal refused by single judge
5. › Whether further application can be made to Full Court
6. › Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), ss 24(1A), 25(2)
7. › Federal Court Rules, O 52 r 10(2)(b)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Indemnity costs
4. › Whether indemnity costs appropriate where self-represented litigant persisted with incompetent appeal
5. › Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 43

Quick Take

Where a single judge has refused an application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment, no further application for such an extension can be made to the Full Court, because such applications invoke the appellate jurisdiction and the Court cannot hear an appeal from its own appellate decision. This applies equally to repeated attempts to seek extensions of time for leave to appeal as to repeated attempts to enlarge time for filing a notice of appeal.