COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA v JAMAL HOUSSAMI [1994] NSWCA 59
No sufficient error was shown in the original judgment to justify granting leave to appeal, especially where the decision was discretionary and interlocutory and no prejudice to the applicant was demonstrated.
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Applicant: Commonwealth of Australia; Respondent: Jamal Houssami
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 20 June 1994
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal
- Outcome
- Summons dismissed. Applicant to pay the opponent's costs.
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Commonwealth of Australia
Applicant
Jamal Houssami
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether sufficient error was shown in the judgment of Judge Hosking to warrant a grant of leave to appeal
Ratio Decidendi
No sufficient error was shown in the original judgment to justify granting leave to appeal, especially where the decision was discretionary and interlocutory and no prejudice to the applicant was demonstrated.
Court Disposition
Summons dismissed. Applicant to pay the opponent's costs.
Orders
- The summons is dismissed.
- The claimant must pay the opponent's costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
9 paragraphs
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA v JAMAL HOUSSAMI SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL
KIRBY P, MEAGHER JA and HANDLEY JA 20 June 1994
[1994] NSWCA 59
Kirby P. The Court does not need the assistance of the opponent in the application for leave.
The Court is of the view that no sufficient error has been shown in the judgment of Judge Hosking to warrant a grant of leave to appeal.
The decision was interlocutory. It was discretionary. The principles of restraint in such a circumstance are well known.
Under close interrogation, counsel of the claimant, who said everything otherwise that could be said in favour of the application, was not able to point to any prejudice to his client. There does not appear to have been any.
Therefore the order which the Court makes is that the summons is dismissed. The claimant must pay the opponent's costs.
Orders accordingly.