Gabrielle v Abood (No 3) [2023] NSWCA 29

Gabrielle v Abood (No 3) [2023] NSWCA 29

Leave to appeal was refused because the challenged refusal of an adjournment was a discretionary decision on a matter of practice and procedure that was well open to the primary judge. The applicant showed no issue of principle or public importance, no unreasonable or plainly unjust result, no ignored material consideration, and no arguable House v The King error or denial of procedural fairness.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From Refusal of Adjournment and Consequent Dismissal of Cross Summons
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'adjournment' 'discretionary Decision' 'procedural Fairness' 'section 66 G Sale of Property' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'appeals' 'property Law'] ['leave to Appeal' 'adjournment' 'discretionary Decision' 'procedural Fairness' 'section 66 G Sale of Property' '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 / Leave to Appeal From Refusal of Adjournment and Consequent Dismissal of Cross Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted from an interlocutory discretionary refusal of an adjournment.' "Whether the primary judge's refusal of an adjournment involved denial of procedural fairness or House v The King error." 'Whether the applicant showed an issue of principle, public importance, or reasonably clear injustice warranting leave to appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the challenged refusal of an adjournment was a discretionary decision on a matter of practice and procedure that was well open to the primary judge. The applicant showed no issue of principle or public importance, no unreasonable or plainly unjust result, no ignored material consideration, and no arguable House v The King error or denial of procedural fairness.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.' 'The applicant is to pay the costs of the first to third respondents.']