Nitopi v Nitopi [2018] NSWCA 228

Nitopi v Nitopi [2018] NSWCA 228

Leave to appeal was warranted because the plaintiff had reasonably good prospects of success: the chronology showed explanations for delay on numerous occasions, the claim involved a substantial amount, the pleadings were complete and the plaintiff's evidence-in-chief had been filed by the time of the dismissal motion, the defendant's cross-claim was likely to proceed on intertwined issues, and no specific actual prejudice to the defendant was proved before the primary judge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Application for Leave to Appeal From an Order Dismissing Proceedings for Want of Due Despatch / Leave Application in the New South Wales Court of Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; costs of the leave application to be costs in the appeal.
Legal Topics
['application for Leave to Appeal' 'dismissal for Want of Due Despatch' 'delay in Proceedings' 'non Compliance With Interlocutory Directions' 'changes of Legal Representation' 'prejudice to Defendant' 'cross Claim']
['civil Procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['application for Leave to Appeal' 'dismissal for Want of Due Despatch' 'delay in Proceedings' 'non Compliance With Interlocutory Directions' 'changes of Legal Representation' 'prejudice to Defendant' 'cross Claim']

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

Civil Application for Leave to Appeal From an Order Dismissing Proceedings for Want of Due Despatch / Leave Application in the New South Wales Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to appeal from the dismissal of the plaintiff's proceedings for want of due despatch." 'Whether delay in the proceedings was adequately explained by the procedural history, including changes of solicitors and liens over papers.' "Whether dismissal was justified where the plaintiff's claim was substantial, evidence-in-chief had been filed, the defendant's cross-claim was likely to proceed, and no specific actual prejudice was proved."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was warranted because the plaintiff had reasonably good prospects of success: the chronology showed explanations for delay on numerous occasions, the claim involved a substantial amount, the pleadings were complete and the plaintiff's evidence-in-chief had been filed by the time of the dismissal motion, the defendant's cross-claim was likely to proceed on intertwined issues, and no specific actual prejudice to the defendant was proved before the primary judge.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; costs of the leave application to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • ['Grant the applicant leave to appeal from the judgment of Hulme J given on 5 April 2018.' 'Costs of the leave application to be costs in the appeal.']