Obeid v Lockley [2017] NSWCA 213

Obeid v Lockley [2017] NSWCA 213

The notice of motion to vacate the appeal hearing was dismissed because the proposed fresh evidence was not yet available and was described with considerable vagueness, it would only be relevant to the ultimate disposition if the damage ground were dispositive, and substantial issues in the appeal, including whether the respondents were public officers and issues raised by the notices of contention, were independent of any fresh evidence application. Vacating the hearing would delay the determination of the appeal contrary to the efficient resolution of the real issues, whereas hearing the appeal as listed preserved the possibility of resolving all or part of it without determining the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Application to Vacate Hearing of Appeal / Notice of Motion Before the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Notice of motion filed 18 August 2017 dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['application to Vacate Appeal Hearing' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'misfeasance in Public Office' 'search Warrant Under the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (nsw)' 'case Management' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'torts' 'administrative Law'] ['application to Vacate Appeal Hearing' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'misfeasance in Public Office' 'search Warrant Under the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (nsw)' 'case Management' '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 to Vacate Hearing of Appeal / Notice of Motion Before the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appeal hearing fixed for 4 September 2017 should be vacated to permit the appellants to gather and seek to adduce fresh evidence arising from ICAC's August 2017 report." 'Whether the proposed fresh evidence was sufficiently identified and likely to be relevant or dispositive of the appeal.' 'Whether substantial issues in the appeal could and should proceed independently of any application to adduce fresh evidence.' 'Whether the respondents should receive the costs of the notice of motion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The notice of motion to vacate the appeal hearing was dismissed because the proposed fresh evidence was not yet available and was described with considerable vagueness, it would only be relevant to the ultimate disposition if the damage ground were dispositive, and substantial issues in the appeal, including whether the respondents were public officers and issues raised by the notices of contention, were independent of any fresh evidence application. Vacating the hearing would delay the determination of the appeal contrary to the efficient resolution of the real issues, whereas hearing the appeal as listed preserved the possibility of resolving all or part of it without determining the...

Court Disposition

Notice of motion filed 18 August 2017 dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed 18 August 2017 is dismissed.' "The dismissal is without prejudice to the appellants' right to apply by motion returnable before the Court of Appeal on 4 September 2017 to adduce fresh evidence and for the whole or part of the appeal listed for that date to be adjourned." 'The notice of...