Denning Real Estate Pty Ltd v XR Property Developments Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 286

Denning Real Estate Pty Ltd v XR Property Developments Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 286

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal was confined to costs and disclosed no issue of principle, no question of general public importance, and no reasonably clear injustice. Demonstrating House v The King error is not sufficient by itself to satisfy the separate statutory requirement for leave, and...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Concerning Costs / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales Equity Decision [2016] NSWSC 556
Outcome
Summons seeking leave to appeal filed 5 August 2016 dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal From Costs Orders' 'discretionary Costs Orders' 'house V the King Error' 'encroachment Between Adjoining Landowners']
['civil Procedure' 'appeals' 'costs' 'property Law'] ['leave to Appeal From Costs Orders' 'discretionary Costs Orders' 'house V the King Error' 'encroachment Between Adjoining Landowners']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal Concerning Costs / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales Equity Decision [2016] NSWSC 556

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted where the subject matter of the proposed appeal was confined to costs.' 'Whether demonstrating House v The King error is sufficient to obtain leave to appeal from a costs order.' "Whether the primary judge's costs discretion miscarried by findings about correspondence, necessity to commence proceedings, or analogy with restrictive covenant cases."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal was confined to costs and disclosed no issue of principle, no question of general public importance, and no reasonably clear injustice. Demonstrating House v The King error is not sufficient by itself to satisfy the separate statutory requirement for leave, and the applicant did not show that the primary judge's costs discretion miscarried in a way warranting appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Summons seeking leave to appeal filed 5 August 2016 dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Summons seeking leave to appeal filed 5 August 2016 dismissed with costs.']