Khanna v Bond Realty Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 128

Khanna v Bond Realty Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 128

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the criteria for granting leave was made out. The primary judge's discretionary decisions to dismiss the motions, refuse further time to file a further amended statement of claim, dismiss the proceedings, set aside the subpoenas and award costs were open and appropriate given the Applicants' repeated failure to file a coherent pleading, their acknowledged inability to formulate the claim, the procedural history, and the absence of any demonstrated bias, inadequacy of reasons, procedural unfairness or material error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court Orders Dismissing Motions and Proceedings
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Discretionary Decisions' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'strike Out and Amendment of Pleadings' 'dismissal of Proceedings' 'costs' 'subpoenas']
['appeals' 'civil Procedure'] ['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Discretionary Decisions' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'strike Out and Amendment of Pleadings' 'dismissal of Proceedings' 'costs' 'subpoenas']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court Orders Dismissing Motions and Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the orders of Curtis ADCJ dismissing the Applicants' notices of motion, dismissing the District Court proceedings, setting aside subpoenas and making costs orders." 'Whether the primary judge erred in refusing a further extension of time to file a further amended statement of claim where the Applicants had not filed one by 2 November 2018 and acknowledged difficulty formulating the claim.' 'Whether the primary judge gave inadequate reasons, acted with bias, erred by making orders in the absence of the Second Applicant, or erred in relation to the 30 October 2018 motion and the medical report date.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the criteria for granting leave was made out. The primary judge's discretionary decisions to dismiss the motions, refuse further time to file a further amended statement of claim, dismiss the proceedings, set aside the subpoenas and award costs were open and appropriate given the Applicants' repeated failure to file a coherent pleading, their acknowledged inability to formulate the claim, the procedural history, and the absence of any demonstrated bias, inadequacy of reasons, procedural unfairness or material error.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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