BERNARD MADIGAN v THE COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA [2002] NSWCA 88

BERNARD MADIGAN v THE COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA [2002] NSWCA 88

The appeal was not shown to be competent because the affidavit relied on by Mr Madigan did not state facts demonstrating that the claim tendered for determination in the appeal exceeded $100,000 or came close to that amount. Although the figures in annexure K totalled more than $100,000, they did not establish the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal; Application for Review of Registrar's Decision on Competency / Court of Appeal Determination of Application for Review
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['competency of Appeal' 'part 51 Rule 8 Affidavit' 'district Court Monetary Appeal Restriction' 'late Objection to Competency' 'costs Following the Event']
['civil Procedure' 'appellate Jurisdiction' 'costs'] ['competency of Appeal' 'part 51 Rule 8 Affidavit' 'district Court Monetary Appeal Restriction' 'late Objection to Competency' 'costs Following the Event']

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

Appeal; Application for Review of Registrar's Decision on Competency / Court of Appeal Determination of Application for Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant's affidavit complied with part 51 rule 8 by stating facts showing that the District Court Act restriction on appeal did not apply." 'Whether the matters in issue in the appeal involved a claim exceeding $100,000 for the purposes of s127 of the District Court Act.' "Whether the respondent's late objection to competency under part 51 rule 25 affected the costs order." "Whether allegations concerning penalties under Pt 4 of the Trade Practices Act and criminal misconduct were within the Court's jurisdiction on the competency application."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was not shown to be competent because the affidavit relied on by Mr Madigan did not state facts demonstrating that the claim tendered for determination in the appeal exceeded $100,000 or came close to that amount. Although the figures in annexure K totalled more than $100,000, they did not establish the necessary jurisdictional facts under part 51 rule 8 and s127 of the District Court Act. The Registrar was correct to dismiss for incompetence, and it was appropriate that costs follow the event notwithstanding the late competency objection.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Application for review dismissed with costs.']