Haigh v Haddad [2025] NSWCA 28

Haigh v Haddad [2025] NSWCA 28

The applicants' claims were found to constitute reflective loss, being claims for damages previously advanced by corporate entities they ultimately controlled and not distinct from the losses suffered by those entities; further, the proceedings were an abuse of process as they sought to re-litigate issues previously determined or capable of being raised in prior proceedings. No sufficient issue of principle, public importance, or reasonably clear injustice was raised. Thus, leave to appeal was refused, with costs ordered against the applicants.

Parties
First Applicant: Stephen William Haigh; Second Applicant: Dimitrios Kikiras; First Respondent: Sam Haddad; Second Respondent: State of New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal; Disposition
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; costs ordered against applicants
Legal Topics
Reflective Loss, Misfeasance in Public Office, Abuse of Process, Limitation of Actions, Summary Dismissal
Civil Procedure Torts Administrative Law Planning Law Reflective Loss Misfeasance in Public Office Abuse of Process Limitation of Actions +1 more

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen William Haigh

First Applicant

Dimitrios Kikiras

Second Applicant

Sam Haddad

First Respondent

State of New South Wales

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal; Disposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' claims are defeated by the principle of reflective loss
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings constitute an abuse of process due to prior litigation
  3. 3 Whether there are triable issues of fact and law that warrant a trial

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' claims were found to constitute reflective loss, being claims for damages previously advanced by corporate entities they ultimately controlled and not distinct from the losses suffered by those entities; further, the proceedings were an abuse of process as they sought to re-litigate issues previously determined or capable of being raised in prior proceedings. No sufficient issue of principle, public importance, or reasonably clear injustice was raised. Thus, leave to appeal was refused, with costs ordered against the applicants.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; costs ordered against applicants

Orders

  • Refuse leave to appeal.
  • Order the applicants to pay the respondents' costs.