Watiwat v Dixon [2018] NSWCA 48

Watiwat v Dixon [2018] NSWCA 48

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal concerned an exercise of discretion on a point of practice or procedure not finally determinative of substantive rights, the applicant did not engage with the detailed reasons given below for the inadequacy of his pleading or identify a basis for error, the refusal to bar fresh proceedings substantially removed potential injustice, and the case raised no issue of principle, question of general public importance, or error more than merely arguable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal From the Judgment of Robb J Given on 20 September 2017 Dismissing Proceedings Under R 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw)
Outcome
Summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the summons.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'practice and Procedure' 'summary Dismissal' 'pleadings' 'costs']
['civil Procedure'] ['leave to Appeal' 'practice and Procedure' 'summary Dismissal' 'pleadings' '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

Application for Leave to Appeal / Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal From the Judgment of Robb J Given on 20 September 2017 Dismissing Proceedings Under R 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to appeal from the dismissal of the applicant's proceedings under r 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)." 'Whether the proposed appeal raised an issue of principle, a question of general public importance, or an error more than merely arguable.' "Whether the matter should be dealt with in the applicant's absence where written submissions had been filed and the court record showed the hearing date had been fixed in his presence before the Registrar."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal concerned an exercise of discretion on a point of practice or procedure not finally determinative of substantive rights, the applicant did not engage with the detailed reasons given below for the inadequacy of his pleading or identify a basis for error, the refusal to bar fresh proceedings substantially removed potential injustice, and the case raised no issue of principle, question of general public importance, or error more than merely arguable.

Court Disposition

Summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the summons.

Orders

  • ['Dismiss the summons filed 19 December 2017 seeking leave to appeal from the judgment of Robb J given on 20 September 2017.' "Order that the applicant pay the respondents' costs of the summons, assessed on the basis of their joint representation."]