CROKER v. CHALLONER [2000] NSWCA 342

CROKER v. CHALLONER [2000] NSWCA 342

Mr. Croker failed to demonstrate misdirection in point of principle or that the discretion of Giles JA miscarried. Further, the purported appeal was incompetent as the orders appealed from were interlocutory and no leave was sought or granted. Mr. Croker’s application was manifestly unarguable, and an extension of time to appeal was properly refused.

Parties
Claimant: Clayton Robert Croker; Opponent: George Challoner
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Motion to Review Decision of Single Judge of Appeal / Court of Appeal – Application to Review Judgment/order of Giles JA
Outcome
Motion dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Court of Appeal Procedure, Review of Single Judge's Decision, Requirements for Leave to Appeal, Competence of Appeal, Interlocutory Orders
Practice and Procedure Court of Appeal Procedure Review of Single Judge's Decision Requirements for Leave to Appeal Competence of Appeal Interlocutory Orders

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clayton Robert Croker

Claimant

George Challoner

Opponent

Procedural Posture

Motion to Review Decision of Single Judge of Appeal / Court of Appeal – Application to Review Judgment/order of Giles JA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Judge (Giles JA) misdirected himself in principle or made an order that was clearly wrong
  2. 2 Whether the discretion vested in Giles JA miscarried
  3. 3 Competence of the purported appeal—whether the orders appealed from were interlocutory and required leave

Ratio Decidendi

Mr. Croker failed to demonstrate misdirection in point of principle or that the discretion of Giles JA miscarried. Further, the purported appeal was incompetent as the orders appealed from were interlocutory and no leave was sought or granted. Mr. Croker’s application was manifestly unarguable, and an extension of time to appeal was properly refused.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Motion dismissed
  • Mr. Croker to pay Dr. Challoner's costs