BATTENFELD (AUST) PTY LIMITED v F J BECK [1991] NSWCA 22

BATTENFELD (AUST) PTY LIMITED v F J BECK [1991] NSWCA 22

The Court held by majority that leave to appeal should not be granted because the order challenged is interlocutory and requires leave under Supreme Court Act 1970, s101(2)(e). The purported appeal as of right is invalid and must be struck out.

Parties
Claimant: Battenfeld (Aust) Pty Limited; Opponent: F J Beck
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 July 1991
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
summons for leave to appeal dismissed; purported appeal as of right struck out; costs awarded to opponent
Legal Topics
Challenge to Order Dispensing With Jury, Interlocutory Order, Leave to Appeal
Practice and Procedure Challenge to Order Dispensing With Jury Interlocutory Order Leave to Appeal

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Battenfeld (Aust) Pty Limited

Claimant

F J Beck

Opponent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether leave to appeal is required for a challenge to an interlocutory order dispensing with a jury
  2. 2 whether the purported appeal as of right is valid

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held by majority that leave to appeal should not be granted because the order challenged is interlocutory and requires leave under Supreme Court Act 1970, s101(2)(e). The purported appeal as of right is invalid and must be struck out.

Court Disposition

summons for leave to appeal dismissed; purported appeal as of right struck out; costs awarded to opponent

Orders

  • Summons for leave to appeal dismissed
  • Claimant to pay opponent's costs