Sayed v National Australia Bank Limited [2020] NSWCA 177

Sayed v National Australia Bank Limited [2020] NSWCA 177

The application for an extension of time was dismissed because Mr Sayed did not identify any error of law or fact by Harrison AsJ in ordering specific performance; his complaint concerned alleged conduct by the Bank and, if made out, the appropriate remedy was an application in the Common Law Division to set aside the orders under UCPR r 36.15(1), not an appeal. The motion to restrain sale or exchange of contracts for the Woonona property was dismissed because the sale had already settled and there was no utility in restraining conduct that had already occurred.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Summons Seeking Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal and Notice of Motion for Interim Restraint / Court of Appeal Procedural Ruling
Outcome
Summons for extension of time to file a notice of appeal dismissed; notice of motion filed 29 June 2020 dismissed; costs orders and directions made.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'leave to File Notice of Appeal Out of Time' 'setting Aside Judgments or Orders' 'interim Restraint' 'costs']
['civil Procedure'] ['extension of Time' 'leave to File Notice of Appeal Out of Time' 'setting Aside Judgments or Orders' 'interim Restraint' '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

Summons Seeking Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal and Notice of Motion for Interim Restraint / Court of Appeal Procedural Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended for Mr Sayed to file a notice of appeal from orders made by Harrison AsJ on 16 April 2015.' "Whether Mr Sayed's complaints about alleged non-production of documents and the resulting entry into the in principle agreement should be pursued by appeal or by an application to set aside the orders under UCPR r 36.15(1)." 'Whether the notice of motion seeking to restrain sale or exchange of contracts for the Woonona property had any utility after the sale had settled.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an extension of time was dismissed because Mr Sayed did not identify any error of law or fact by Harrison AsJ in ordering specific performance; his complaint concerned alleged conduct by the Bank and, if made out, the appropriate remedy was an application in the Common Law Division to set aside the orders under UCPR r 36.15(1), not an appeal. The motion to restrain sale or exchange of contracts for the Woonona property was dismissed because the sale had already settled and there was no utility in restraining conduct that had already occurred.

Court Disposition

Summons for extension of time to file a notice of appeal dismissed; notice of motion filed 29 June 2020 dismissed; costs orders and directions made.

Orders

  • ['The summons dated 15 August 2019 in proceedings 2019/253854 be dismissed.' 'The applicant on the summons referred to in Order 1 pay the costs of the respondents.' 'Any question of varying the order for costs to seek a gross lump sum costs order be reserved to the respondents, any such application to be made within...