Ngo v Fenech [1999] NSWCA 219

Ngo v Fenech [1999] NSWCA 219

Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge's finding of sufficient reason for commencing in the District Court should not be disturbed, and because the Court could not compare the offer of compromise with the judgment recovered where costs were not quantified, making it impossible to determine whether the total amount recovered exceeded the total amount offered.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Orders / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court
Outcome
Leave refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['offer of Compromise' 'district Court Rules Part 19 A' 'district Court Rules O 39 R 25(6)' 'leave to Appeal' 'sufficient Reason for Commencing in District Court']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['offer of Compromise' 'district Court Rules Part 19 A' 'district Court Rules O 39 R 25(6)' 'leave to Appeal' 'sufficient Reason for Commencing in District Court']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Orders / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to challenge the District Court finding that there was sufficient reason for bringing the action in the District Court rather than the Local Court within the meaning of part 39A r 12 of the District Court rules.' "Whether the claimant's offer of compromise, including an offer that there be no order as to costs, was an offer within part 19A r 2(a) of the District Court Rules that engaged O 39 r 25(6)." "Whether the Court could compare the claimant's offer with the judgment recovered by the opponent when costs had not been quantified."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge's finding of sufficient reason for commencing in the District Court should not be disturbed, and because the Court could not compare the offer of compromise with the judgment recovered where costs were not quantified, making it impossible to determine whether the total amount recovered exceeded the total amount offered.

Court Disposition

Leave refused with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application is refused with costs.']