Cox Brothers (Australia) Limited v Cox [1934] HCA 16

Cox Brothers (Australia) Limited v Cox [1934] HCA 16

The order giving leave to sign final judgment is interlocutory, not final, and leave to appeal is necessary; since leave was not obtained and had been refused, the appeal is incompetent and must be struck out.

Parties
Plaintiff: Cox Brothers (Australia) Limited; Plaintiff: Cox Investments Ltd.; Defendant: Cox
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application to Strike Out Appeal
Outcome
appeal struck out as incompetent
Legal Topics
Final Vs Interlocutory Orders, Leave to Appeal, Appeal Practice
Civil Procedure Final Vs Interlocutory Orders Leave to Appeal Appeal Practice

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cox Brothers (Australia) Limited

Plaintiff

Cox Investments Ltd.

Plaintiff

Cox

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application to Strike Out Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is an order giving leave to sign final judgment final or interlocutory for purposes of appeal to the High Court?
  2. 2 Is leave to appeal necessary in this case?
  3. 3 Can an appeal from a judgment entered pursuant to an interlocutory order be maintained without appealing directly from the interlocutory order?

Ratio Decidendi

The order giving leave to sign final judgment is interlocutory, not final, and leave to appeal is necessary; since leave was not obtained and had been refused, the appeal is incompetent and must be struck out.

Court Disposition

appeal struck out as incompetent

Orders

  • application to amend notice of appeal refused
  • appeal struck out