Xu v Georges [2013] NSWSC 880

Xu v Georges [2013] NSWSC 880

Leave was refused because the plaintiff's grounds did not establish errors of law or mixed fact and law. They either sought to revisit findings of fact that were open on the evidence, including credit findings preferring the defendants' evidence, or alleged legal errors that were unfounded. The magistrate gave sufficient reasons, the challenged findings were supported by evidence, and no manifest irrationality, illogicality or unreasonableness was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Local Court to Supreme Court / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; costs ordered in favour of the defendants.
Legal Topics
['appeal From Local Court' 'leave to Appeal' 'questions of Law and Fact' 'findings of Fact' 'development Application' 'indemnity Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'contract Law' 'negligence' 'costs'] ['appeal From Local Court' 'leave to Appeal' 'questions of Law and Fact' 'findings of Fact' 'development Application' 'indemnity 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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Local Court to Supreme Court / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's grounds raised questions of law or mixed law and fact capable of supporting an appeal from the Local Court." 'Whether the magistrate made errors of law, including findings unsupported by evidence, failure to determine agreement terms, inadequate reasons, failure to consider relevant evidence, inconsistent reasoning, or manifest irrationality.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted.' 'What costs orders should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the plaintiff's grounds did not establish errors of law or mixed fact and law. They either sought to revisit findings of fact that were open on the evidence, including credit findings preferring the defendants' evidence, or alleged legal errors that were unfounded. The magistrate gave sufficient reasons, the challenged findings were supported by evidence, and no manifest irrationality, illogicality or unreasonableness was shown.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; costs ordered in favour of the defendants.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.' 'Up to and including 18th October 2011 costs as agreed or on the ordinary basis are to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants.' 'Indemnity costs thereafter are to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants.']