Johnstone v State of New South Wales [2006] NSWCA 105

Johnstone v State of New South Wales [2006] NSWCA 105

Leave to appeal was refused because the primary judge applied the correct statutory test in s 145(2), gave reasons sufficient in the urgent circumstances, was not required to conduct a complete item-by-item damages assessment, and his conclusion that damages were unlikely to exceed $750,000 was open on the evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From Dismissal of an Application to Remove District Court Proceedings to the Supreme Court / Court of Appeal Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Extend time for applying for leave to appeal. Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['removal of Proceedings From District Court to Supreme Court' 'leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'district Court Damages Threshold']
['civil Procedure' 'personal Injury Damages'] ['removal of Proceedings From District Court to Supreme Court' 'leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'district Court Damages Threshold']

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 From Dismissal of an Application to Remove District Court Proceedings to the Supreme Court / Court of Appeal Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended for applying for leave to appeal.' 'Whether the judge applied the wrong test under s 145(2) of the District Court Act 1973 when refusing removal of the proceedings to the Supreme Court.' 'Whether the judge gave sufficient reasons for concluding that damages were unlikely to exceed $750,000.' "Whether the judge's conclusion on the likelihood of damages exceeding $750,000 was open on the evidence."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the primary judge applied the correct statutory test in s 145(2), gave reasons sufficient in the urgent circumstances, was not required to conduct a complete item-by-item damages assessment, and his conclusion that damages were unlikely to exceed $750,000 was open on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Extend time for applying for leave to appeal. Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Time for applying for leave to appeal extended.' 'Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.']