Kation Pty. Limited & Anor. v. Lamru Pty. Limited & Ors. [2003] NSWCA 344

Kation Pty. Limited & Anor. v. Lamru Pty. Limited & Ors. [2003] NSWCA 344

The Court refused the extension of time and leave to appeal as a matter of discretion because the challenge to the 29 April interlocutory decision was not brought promptly, the trial had been allowed to proceed and approach conclusion, the 20 June evidentiary rulings were consequential upon the earlier decision, the 26 June amendment application was substantially similar to the April application, and insufficient reason was given for the delay in seeking to raise the issues.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgments / Court of Appeal Determination of Whether Time Should Be Extended and Leave to Appeal Granted
Outcome
Application for extension of time and application for leave to appeal both dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Decisions' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'amendment of Defence' 'evidentiary Rulings' 'clean Hands' 'do Equity']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['interlocutory Decisions' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'amendment of Defence' 'evidentiary Rulings' 'clean Hands' 'do Equity']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time and Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgments / Court of Appeal Determination of Whether Time Should Be Extended and Leave to Appeal Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended for applying for leave to appeal from interlocutory judgments of Hamilton J.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted from interlocutory decisions refusing or limiting proposed defences and evidence concerning cash dealings.' 'Whether delay in bringing the applications and the advanced state of the trial weighed against granting interlocutory appellate relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused the extension of time and leave to appeal as a matter of discretion because the challenge to the 29 April interlocutory decision was not brought promptly, the trial had been allowed to proceed and approach conclusion, the 20 June evidentiary rulings were consequential upon the earlier decision, the 26 June amendment application was substantially similar to the April application, and insufficient reason was given for the delay in seeking to raise the issues.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time and application for leave to appeal both dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Application for extension of time dismissed with costs.' 'Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.']