Background
Christopher Ross applied for leave to appeal from the judgment in Ross v Stewart [2025] FCA 1328. The primary judge had dismissed an interlocutory application and permanently stayed Mr Ross’s originating application as an abuse of process. His proposed appeal alleged several legal errors concerning both the procedure followed and the result, and sought relief including the quashing of decisions in related proceedings and the provision of legal representation.
The respondent filed a submitting notice. After initially corresponding with the Registry, Mr Ross did not meaningfully engage with efforts to schedule and manage the proceeding. He failed to attend an online case management hearing on 13 May 2026, did not explain that absence despite requests, did not return the litigant-in-person acknowledgment form, and did not file written submissions by the court-ordered deadline. He also failed to appear at the leave hearing on 4 August 2026.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Stellios dismissed the application for leave to appeal for non-appearance and want of prosecution. The Court acted under ss 25(2B)(ba), 25(2B)(bb)(ii) and 25(2BA) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and, if necessary, rr 1.40, 35.32 and 35.33 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).
The Court found that Mr Ross had received sufficient notice of the hearing and sufficient opportunity to prepare and file submissions. His failure to attend two hearings, comply with timetabling orders, respond meaningfully to Registry communications, or otherwise advance the matter justified dismissal. The Court did not determine the substantive merits of his proposed grounds of appeal.
Key Takeaways
- An application for leave to appeal may be dismissed when the applicant fails to appear and does not prosecute it.
- A self-represented litigant must comply with hearing notices, filing deadlines, and reasonable case-management directions.
- The dismissal was procedural and did not decide whether the proposed appeal disclosed substantive error.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Federal Court’s authority to bring an appellate proceeding to an end when an applicant repeatedly fails to participate despite adequate notice and multiple opportunities to do so. Filing a leave application is not enough; the applicant must actively prosecute it and comply with the Court’s directions.
It also shows that self-representation does not remove the obligation to communicate with the Registry, attend listed hearings, and file required materials.