BRODBECK & ANOR. v. POTTS & ORS. [2001] NSWCA 39

BRODBECK & ANOR. v. POTTS & ORS. [2001] NSWCA 39

Leave to appeal is refused because the relevant causes of action are long time-barred under the Limitation Act 1969; any order allowing late service or vacating the hearing would be futile and prejudicial. There is no basis for granting the relief sought given the inordinate delay and the expired limitation periods.

Parties
Claimant: Desmond James Brodbeck; Claimant: Joan Maree Brodbeck; Opponent: Craighton Potts; Opponent: Clive Arthur Potts; Opponent: John Latimer; Opponent: Ashley Reed; Opponent: Ross Neville; Opponent: Peter Clinch
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Order (district Court)
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Application to Vacate Hearing Date, Leave to Appeal Refusal, Limitation of Actions, Personal Liability of Solicitor for Costs
Practice and Procedure Civil Litigation Application to Vacate Hearing Date Leave to Appeal Refusal Limitation of Actions Personal Liability of Solicitor for 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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Desmond James Brodbeck

Claimant

Joan Maree Brodbeck

Claimant

Craighton Potts

Opponent

Clive Arthur Potts

Opponent

John Latimer

Opponent

Ashley Reed

Opponent

Ross Neville

Opponent

Peter Clinch

Opponent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Order (district Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Court erred in refusing to vacate the hearing date and refusing leave to serve the statement of claim on a defendant out of time
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted from interlocutory procedural orders
  3. 3 Effect of Limitation Act 1969 ss.14, 65 on claims for breach of contract or negligence regarding legal services

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal is refused because the relevant causes of action are long time-barred under the Limitation Act 1969; any order allowing late service or vacating the hearing would be futile and prejudicial. There is no basis for granting the relief sought given the inordinate delay and the expired limitation periods.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused.
  • Application to vacate hearing dismissed.