Bar-Mordecai v Australasian Medical Insurance Ltd; Bar-Mordecai v United Medical Protection Ltd & 2 Ors [2005] NSWSC 407

Bar-Mordecai v Australasian Medical Insurance Ltd; Bar-Mordecai v United Medical Protection Ltd & 2 Ors [2005] NSWSC 407

Leave was refused because neither proposed appeal disclosed a prima facie ground or reasonable prospects of success. In proceeding 20280/2002, the appeal grounds relied on statutory claims not pleaded or argued before the Master, misunderstood that the Master's task was to decide whether leave to proceed should be granted rather than to make final findings, and disclosed no arguable error. In proceeding 20325/2003, the pleaded grounds of appeal did not identify any sensible basis to disturb the Master's dismissal of the further amended statement of claim, and the appeal had no prospects of success and was an abuse of process.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeals Against Decisions of a Master; Applications for Leave to Continue Appeals After Vexatious Litigant Orders / Leave to Continue Appeals
Outcome
Leave to continue both appeals refused.
Legal Topics
['leave to Continue Proceedings Under Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) S84' 'prima Facie Ground for Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'leave to Proceed Against Company in Provisional Liquidation Under Corporations Act 2001 (cth) S471 B' 'summary Dismissal and Strike Out' 'appeal From a Master']
['civil Procedure' 'vexatious Proceedings' 'corporations' 'insurance' 'fair Trading and Trade Practices' 'medical Professional Indemnity'] ['leave to Continue Proceedings Under Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) S84' 'prima Facie Ground for Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'leave to Proceed Against Company in Provisional Liquidation Under Corporations Act 2001 (cth) S471 B' 'summary Dismissal and Strike Out' 'appeal From a Master']

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

Appeals Against Decisions of a Master; Applications for Leave to Continue Appeals After Vexatious Litigant Orders / Leave to Continue Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave under s84 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 to continue the appeal in proceeding numbered 20280/2002.' 'Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave under s84 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 to continue the appeal in proceeding numbered 20325/2003.' 'Whether the proposed appeals had reasonable prospects of success or disclosed a prima facie ground for proceedings.' 'Whether continuing either appeal would be an abuse of process.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because neither proposed appeal disclosed a prima facie ground or reasonable prospects of success. In proceeding 20280/2002, the appeal grounds relied on statutory claims not pleaded or argued before the Master, misunderstood that the Master's task was to decide whether leave to proceed should be granted rather than to make final findings, and disclosed no arguable error. In proceeding 20325/2003, the pleaded grounds of appeal did not identify any sensible basis to disturb the Master's dismissal of the further amended statement of claim, and the appeal had no prospects of success and was an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Leave to continue both appeals refused.

Orders

  • ['Proceeding numbered 20280/2002: leave to continue the appeal is refused.' 'Proceeding numbered 20325/2003: leave to continue the appeal is refused.']