Trent v Bolton [2020] NSWCA 268

Trent v Bolton [2020] NSWCA 268

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed ground did not raise a question of principle warranting appellate review, the hearing had been conducted with informality in circumstances involving self-represented parties, any reliance on verification affidavits was not shown to be material, and the primary judge's findings that the respondents paid or supplied funds for payment of the NAB debt were factual findings capable of supporting the offset and contribution conclusion and were not shown to be obviously wrong.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From the District Court Refused by the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'contribution Between Co Guarantors' 'affidavits Verifying Pleadings' 'informal Conduct of Trial Involving Self Represented Parties' 'findings of Fact']
['appeals' 'guarantee and Indemnity'] ['leave to Appeal' 'contribution Between Co Guarantors' 'affidavits Verifying Pleadings' 'informal Conduct of Trial Involving Self Represented Parties' 'findings of Fact']

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

Civil Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From the District Court Refused by the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants should be granted leave to appeal from the District Court judgment reducing their claim by an offset of $21,500.' 'Whether the primary judge erred by relying on affidavits verifying pleadings as evidence that the respondents had made loan repayments.' 'Whether payments made by or through the company towards the National Australia Bank debt were payments under the guarantees entitling the respondents to contribution from co-guarantors.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed ground did not raise a question of principle warranting appellate review, the hearing had been conducted with informality in circumstances involving self-represented parties, any reliance on verification affidavits was not shown to be material, and the primary judge's findings that the respondents paid or supplied funds for payment of the NAB debt were factual findings capable of supporting the offset and contribution conclusion and were not shown to be obviously wrong.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Refuse the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the District Court.' "Order that the applicants pay the respondents' disbursements incurred in this Court."]