Canberra Residential Developments Pty Limited v Brendas (No 3) [2008] FCA 350

Canberra Residential Developments Pty Limited v Brendas (No 3) [2008] FCA 350

Leave to appeal was refused because the interlocutory judgment of 4 March 2008 was not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration by a Full Court, and no substantial injustice would be occasioned to the applicant by refusing leave, even supposing the earlier decision to be wrong. The Court also...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Judgment / Ore Tenus Application to the Trial Judge for Leave to Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment' 'cross Examination by Different Counsel' 'exercise of Discretion' 'substantial Injustice']
['practice and Procedure' 'appeals'] ['leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment' 'cross Examination by Different Counsel' 'exercise of Discretion' 'substantial Injustice']

Source-derived case record

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 From an Interlocutory Judgment / Ore Tenus Application to the Trial Judge for Leave to Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to appeal from the interlocutory judgment refusing permission for different counsel to further cross-examine Mr Brendas.' 'Whether the interlocutory judgment was attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration by a Full Court.' 'Whether substantial injustice would result if leave to appeal were refused, supposing the interlocutory judgment to be wrong.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the interlocutory judgment of 4 March 2008 was not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration by a Full Court, and no substantial injustice would be occasioned to the applicant by refusing leave, even supposing the earlier decision to be wrong. The Court also accepted that further prolongation of the matter could prejudice the first, second and third respondents.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal made ore tenus at 10.15am on 5 March 2008 from the interlocutory judgment of Graham J of 4 March 2008 (Canberra Residential Developments Pty Limited v Brendas (No 2) [2008] FCA 255) be dismissed.' 'The applicant pay the costs of the first, second and third respondents of the...