National Mutual Property Services (Australia) Pty Ltd & Ors v Citibank Savings Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 1038

National Mutual Property Services (Australia) Pty Ltd & Ors v Citibank Savings Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 1038

Lindgren J's decision was interlocutory and therefore required leave to appeal. Although the decision affected the applicants' ability to rely on alleged assignments in the proceedings, it did not finally determine their rights because the matters could be re-agitated on an appeal from final judgment. The decision was attended with very little doubt: Lindgren J applied the correct strike-out or summary-disposal principles, the double satisfaction reasoning was plainly correct, and the assignment reasoning was not subject to a substantial element of doubt. In those circumstances, refusal of immediate leave would not cause substantial injustice sufficient to justify leave.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 1995
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders Striking Out Pleadings Without Liberty to Re Plead and Dismissing Claims
Outcome
The motion was stood over generally, and the applicants were ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of the motion to date.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'final Judgment' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'double Satisfaction' 'assignment of Claims' 'substantive Rights' 'case Management']
['practice and Procedure'] ['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'final Judgment' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'double Satisfaction' 'assignment of Claims' 'substantive Rights' 'case Management']

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 / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders Striking Out Pleadings Without Liberty to Re Plead and Dismissing Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Lindgren J's judgment was final or interlocutory." 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted.' 'Whether the proposed appeal was attended with sufficient doubt to justify leave.' 'Whether substantial injustice would result if leave were refused.' 'Whether a party appealing from a final judgment may re-agitate matters dealt with in interlocutory proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

Lindgren J's decision was interlocutory and therefore required leave to appeal. Although the decision affected the applicants' ability to rely on alleged assignments in the proceedings, it did not finally determine their rights because the matters could be re-agitated on an appeal from final judgment. The decision was attended with very little doubt: Lindgren J applied the correct strike-out or summary-disposal principles, the double satisfaction reasoning was plainly correct, and the assignment reasoning was not subject to a substantial element of doubt. In those circumstances, refusal of immediate leave would not cause substantial injustice sufficient to justify leave.

Court Disposition

The motion was stood over generally, and the applicants were ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of the motion to date.

Orders

  • ['THAT the motion be stood over generally.' 'THAT the costs of the motion to date of the first respondent be paid by the applicants.']