Martin v State of New South Wales (No 7) [2011] NSWCA 282

Martin v State of New South Wales (No 7) [2011] NSWCA 282

The challenged orders were interlocutory or concerned costs, so leave to appeal was required. No arguable question of principle or law was shown: the refusal of summary judgment was plainly correct because the State's submitting appearance did not concede the applicant's substantive case, and the remaining orders involved discretionary practice, procedure, or costs matters not shown to involve error warranting appellate intervention.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Notice of Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders and Costs Orders of the Land and Environment Court
Outcome
Notice of appeal struck out; leave to appeal refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Orders' 'summary Judgment' 'submitting Appearance' 'production of Documents' 'stay of Costs Order' 'proportionality of Costs']
['administrative Law' 'civil Procedure' 'costs' 'appeals'] ['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Orders' 'summary Judgment' 'submitting Appearance' 'production of Documents' 'stay of Costs Order' 'proportionality of Costs']

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

Civil Appeal / Notice of Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders and Costs Orders of the Land and Environment Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal was required for orders that were interlocutory or concerned costs under s 57 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW).' "Whether the State's submitting appearance justified summary judgment in favour of the applicant." 'Whether the primary judge erred in refusing or deferring orders for production of documents, refusing a stay of a costs order, and deferring consideration of proportionality of costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The challenged orders were interlocutory or concerned costs, so leave to appeal was required. No arguable question of principle or law was shown: the refusal of summary judgment was plainly correct because the State's submitting appearance did not concede the applicant's substantive case, and the remaining orders involved discretionary practice, procedure, or costs matters not shown to involve error warranting appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Notice of appeal struck out; leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • ['Notice of appeal struck out.' 'Leave to appeal refused with costs.']