Martin v State of New South Wales (No 10) [2011] NSWCA 287

Martin v State of New South Wales (No 10) [2011] NSWCA 287

Leave to appeal should be granted because, although no error of law was shown in striking out the existing points of claim with leave to replead, the security for costs orders were arguably affected by legal error: they prevented repleading before the basis of any standing or claim was known, were made on the premise that the applicant sued only for his wife's benefit while that premise was inconsistent with the standing analysis, applied a threshold not expressed in r 42.21(e), and may have failed to account for r 42.7(2) concerning interlocutory costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal in Relation to Class 8 Proceedings / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders of the Land and Environment Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; costs of the application for leave to appeal to be costs in the appeal.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'strike Out of Pleading' 'leave to Appeal' 'standing' 'exploration Licence' 'interlocutory Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'mining Law' 'administrative Law'] ['security for Costs' 'strike Out of Pleading' 'leave to Appeal' 'standing' 'exploration Licence' 'interlocutory Orders']

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 in Relation to Class 8 Proceedings / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders of the Land and Environment Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the notice of appeal was incompetent because appeals in relation to Class 8 proceedings are limited to questions of law and interlocutory appeals require leave.' "Whether the primary judge erred in striking out the applicant's points of claim while granting leave to replead." 'Whether the order for security for costs under r 42.21(e) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) was attended by arguable errors of law.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the security for costs orders.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal should be granted because, although no error of law was shown in striking out the existing points of claim with leave to replead, the security for costs orders were arguably affected by legal error: they prevented repleading before the basis of any standing or claim was known, were made on the premise that the applicant sued only for his wife's benefit while that premise was inconsistent with the standing analysis, applied a threshold not expressed in r 42.21(e), and may have failed to account for r 42.7(2) concerning interlocutory costs.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; costs of the application for leave to appeal to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Costs of the application for leave to appeal should be costs in the appeal.']