FORBES v LINDOP [1995] NSWCA 152

FORBES v LINDOP [1995] NSWCA 152

The order under challenge was interlocutory; a second application was permissible; the trial judge exercised proper discretion; there was no basis for appellate intervention, hence leave to appeal is refused.

Parties
Claimant: Forbes; Opponent: Lindop
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 July 1995
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal — Interlocutory Appeal
Outcome
Summons for leave to appeal dismissed. Claimant to pay opponent's costs.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Orders, District Court Procedure, Motor Accidents Act, Leave to Proceed After Refusal
Practice & Procedure Interlocutory Orders District Court Procedure Motor Accidents Act Leave to Proceed After Refusal

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Forbes

Claimant

Lindop

Opponent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal — Interlocutory Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a second application for leave to proceed under Motor Accidents Act can be made following earlier refusal
  2. 2 Whether the order made by the District Court Judge was interlocutory
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The order under challenge was interlocutory; a second application was permissible; the trial judge exercised proper discretion; there was no basis for appellate intervention, hence leave to appeal is refused.

Court Disposition

Summons for leave to appeal dismissed. Claimant to pay opponent's costs.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Claimant to pay opponent's costs