Rose v Tunstall [2018] NSWCA 241

Rose v Tunstall [2018] NSWCA 241

Leave to appeal and cross-appeal was refused because the Supreme Court does not have power to make findings of primary fact in an appeal limited to a question of law under s 39 of the Local Court Act 2007 (NSW), and because the case did not involve an issue of principle, general importance or clear injustice and the costs incurred were disproportionate to the amount in dispute.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Cross Appeal / Court of Appeal – Leave Determination
Outcome
Leave to appeal and leave to cross-appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['appeal on Question of Law' 'fact Finding Authority' 'associations Liability for Debts' 'proportionality of Costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal and Cross Appeal / Court of Appeal – Leave Determination

  1. 1 ['Does the Supreme Court have power to make findings of primary fact in an appeal on a question of law under s 39 of the Local Court Act 2007 (NSW)?' 'Should leave to appeal and/or cross-appeal be granted given the circumstances, including the amount in dispute and proportionality of costs?']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal and cross-appeal was refused because the Supreme Court does not have power to make findings of primary fact in an appeal limited to a question of law under s 39 of the Local Court Act 2007 (NSW), and because the case did not involve an issue of principle, general importance or clear injustice and the costs incurred were disproportionate to the amount in dispute.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal and leave to cross-appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused.' 'Leave to cross-appeal refused.' 'No order as to costs in this Court.']