MARGARITIS v AGC (ADVANCES) PTY LTD [1991] NSWCA 191

MARGARITIS v AGC (ADVANCES) PTY LTD [1991] NSWCA 191

Leave to appeal was refused because the proper procedure to set aside the deed of settlement and consent orders was via fresh proceedings, not appeal; appeal procedure was unsuitable given complexity and materiality issues, and judicial resources would be better used by a single judge at first instance.

Parties
Claimant: Mr and Mrs Margaritis; Claimant: Attika Investments Pty Ltd; Claimant: Attika Property Management Pty Ltd; Opponent: AGC (Advances) Pty Ltd; Opponent: Westpac Banking Corporation
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 1991
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal Refused
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Consent Orders, Settlement, Discovery, Appeal Procedure, Costs
Civil Procedure Consent Orders Settlement Discovery Appeal Procedure 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr and Mrs Margaritis

Claimant

Attika Investments Pty Ltd

Claimant

Attika Property Management Pty Ltd

Claimant

AGC (Advances) Pty Ltd

Opponent

Westpac Banking Corporation

Opponent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted to set aside consent orders based on alleged non-disclosure in discovery
  2. 2 Appropriateness of appeal procedure versus fresh proceedings to set aside consent orders
  3. 3 Grounds for setting aside a deed of settlement and consent orders

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the proper procedure to set aside the deed of settlement and consent orders was via fresh proceedings, not appeal; appeal procedure was unsuitable given complexity and materiality issues, and judicial resources would be better used by a single judge at first instance.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application refused
  • No order as to costs