Press v iSam Securities (UK) Ltd [2024] NSWCA 260

Press v iSam Securities (UK) Ltd [2024] NSWCA 260

Leave to appeal was refused because the orders challenged were interlocutory and did not raise issues of principle or public importance, nor were they productive of substantial injustice. The primary judge's decisions to require both affidavit and preliminary discovery were within discretion and tailored to the specific circumstances. The applicants failed to demonstrate any error of principle, excess of authority, or substantial prejudice justifying appellate intervention.

Parties
First Applicant: Matthew Press; Second Applicant: Forexco Australia Pty Ltd; First Respondent: iSAM Securities (UK) Limited; Second Respondent: iSAM Securities (HK) Limited; Third Respondent: iSAM Securities (Global) Limited; Fourth Respondent: iSAM Securities (USA) Inc
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal (interlocutory)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Appeals, Leave to Appeal, Preliminary Discovery, Interlocutory Orders
Civil Procedure Appeals Leave to Appeal Preliminary Discovery Interlocutory Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Press

First Applicant

Forexco Australia Pty Ltd

Second Applicant

iSAM Securities (UK) Limited

First Respondent

iSAM Securities (HK) Limited

Second Respondent

iSAM Securities (Global) Limited

Third Respondent

iSAM Securities (USA) Inc

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted from interlocutory orders for preliminary discovery
  2. 2 Whether the primary judge erred in principle in ordering both affidavit and document discovery
  3. 3 Whether the discovery ordered was excessively broad or unjust

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the orders challenged were interlocutory and did not raise issues of principle or public importance, nor were they productive of substantial injustice. The primary judge's decisions to require both affidavit and preliminary discovery were within discretion and tailored to the specific circumstances. The applicants failed to demonstrate any error of principle, excess of authority, or substantial prejudice justifying appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal filed on 4 September 2024 is dismissed.
  • The applicants are to pay the respondents' costs.