Lukaszewicz v Polish Club Ltd [2020] NSWCA 99

Lukaszewicz v Polish Club Ltd [2020] NSWCA 99

Leave to appeal and cross-appeal was required, as the issues involved no property or civil right of $100,000 or more and raised no point of principle or public importance beyond being arguable. The appeal and cross-appeal were therefore incompetent and refused. Limited declaratory relief after a finding of oppression was adequate given the absence of further requested relief at trial and no substantial injustice was demonstrated.

Parties
First Appellant/first Cross Respondent: Kazimiera Lukaszewicz; Second Appellant/second Cross Respondent: Mick Wykrota; Third Appellant/third Cross Respondent: Dariusz Plust; Respondent/cross Appellant: Polish Club Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Cross Appeal Before Court of Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal and cross-appeal refused; appeal and cross-appeal dismissed as incompetent; no further order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Declaratory Relief, Oppression Remedy, Competency of Appeal
Civil Procedure Corporations Law Leave to Appeal Declaratory Relief Oppression Remedy Competency of Appeal

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 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kazimiera Lukaszewicz

First Appellant/first Cross Respondent

Mick Wykrota

Second Appellant/second Cross Respondent

Dariusz Plust

Third Appellant/third Cross Respondent

Polish Club Limited

Respondent/cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Cross Appeal Before Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal and cross-appeal was required under s 101(2)(r) Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether bare declaratory relief in an oppression claim was adequate or should be supplemented with injunctions or other orders
  3. 3 Whether the appeal/cross-appeal raised issues of principle, public importance, or substantial injustice

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal and cross-appeal was required, as the issues involved no property or civil right of $100,000 or more and raised no point of principle or public importance beyond being arguable. The appeal and cross-appeal were therefore incompetent and refused. Limited declaratory relief after a finding of oppression was adequate given the absence of further requested relief at trial and no substantial injustice was demonstrated.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal and cross-appeal refused; appeal and cross-appeal dismissed as incompetent; no further order as to costs.

Orders

  • Summons seeking leave to appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.
  • Purported notices of appeal and cross-appeal dismissed as incompetent.