A [a pseudonym] v E Co [a pseudonym] [2018] NSWCA 188
Leave to appeal was refused because the primary judge's discretion to reopen the hearing was not shown to have miscarried; no issue of principle justified appellate intervention; there was no denial of procedural fairness or injustice meeting the threshold for leave to appeal from an interlocutory procedural decision; and granting leave would risk further delay and expense contrary to efficient dispute resolution.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 23 August 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- ['reopening Proceedings' 'leave to Appeal' 'procedural Fairness' 'proprietary Estoppel' 'interlocutory Orders']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether conditions for reopening proceedings were satisfied' 'Whether procedural fairness required reopening for further evidence on relief' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted from interlocutory procedural decisions']
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was refused because the primary judge's discretion to reopen the hearing was not shown to have miscarried; no issue of principle justified appellate intervention; there was no denial of procedural fairness or injustice meeting the threshold for leave to appeal from an interlocutory procedural decision; and granting leave would risk further delay and expense contrary to efficient dispute resolution.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- ['Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment