JOHN DAVID RICH & MARK ALAN SILBERMAN v AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES & INVESTMENTS COMMISSION [2003] NSWCA 194

Leave to appeal was refused because the alleged irrelevant consideration in the costs order was not argued before the primary judge and was raised for the first time on appeal.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 10 July 2003
Procedural Posture: Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Regarding Costs Order
Outcome: Leave to appeal refused, with costs.
Legal Topics: ['costs' 'appeal' 'irrelevant Consideration in Costs Order']

['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'appeal' 'irrelevant Consideration in Costs Order']

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

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Regarding Costs Order

Legal Issues

1 ["Whether the refusal of insurers to indemnify defendant directors' costs was an irrelevant consideration for the costs order" 'Whether the issue could be raised on appeal when it was not raised below']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the alleged irrelevant consideration in the costs order was not argued before the primary judge and was raised for the first time on appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused, with costs.

Orders

['Leave to appeal is refused, with costs.']