Shaw v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [1999] NSWCA 131

Shaw v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [1999] NSWCA 131

All three appeals required leave to appeal under section 101 (2)(m) of the Supreme Court Act, or under section 101 (2)(e) insofar as they concerned refusal of an adjournment or refusal to add parties. Because the appeals were brought without leave, they were incompetent and the notices of appeal were dismissed with costs, subject to costs being reserved if an application for leave to appeal from any relevant decision was filed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeals From Decisions Concerning Real Property Caveats and Related Interlocutory Orders / Notices of Motion by the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy Seeking Dismissal of the Appeals Or, Alternatively, a Stay Until Security for Costs Is Provided
Outcome
Appeals dismissed as incompetent, with costs; if an application for leave to appeal from any relevant decision is filed, the costs of the day are reserved to the Court determining that application for leave.
Legal Topics
['incompetent Appeals' 'leave to Appeal' 'real Property Caveats' 'security for Costs']
['appellate Procedure' 'real Property'] ['incompetent Appeals' 'leave to Appeal' 'real Property Caveats' 'security 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeals From Decisions Concerning Real Property Caveats and Related Interlocutory Orders / Notices of Motion by the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy Seeking Dismissal of the Appeals Or, Alternatively, a Stay Until Security for Costs Is Provided

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appeals were incompetent because leave to appeal was required under section 101(2) of the Supreme Court Act.' 'Whether the appeals should be dismissed or stayed until security for costs was provided.' 'Whether a broader order staying further proceedings should be made on the basis that any appeal or application for leave to appeal was manifestly hopeless.']

Ratio Decidendi

All three appeals required leave to appeal under section 101 (2)(m) of the Supreme Court Act, or under section 101 (2)(e) insofar as they concerned refusal of an adjournment or refusal to add parties. Because the appeals were brought without leave, they were incompetent and the notices of appeal were dismissed with costs, subject to costs being reserved if an application for leave to appeal from any relevant decision was filed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed as incompetent, with costs; if an application for leave to appeal from any relevant decision is filed, the costs of the day are reserved to the Court determining that application for leave.

Orders

  • ['The notices of appeal be dismissed with costs.' 'If an application for leave to appeal from any of the relevant decisions is filed, the costs of today are reserved to the Court determining that application for leave.']