Mann v Capital Territory Health Commission [1982] HCA 10

The appeal was incompetent as the matter in issue did not amount to, nor was valued at, $20,000 or more, with no sufficient evidence supporting damages in excess of the threshold. Consequently, the application for special leave was also refused.

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Procedural Posture: Appeal and Application for Special Leave / High Court Judgment on Objection to Competency of Appeal and Special Leave Application
Outcome: Objection to competency of appeal upheld; application for special leave to appeal refused, both with costs.
Legal Topics: ['breach of Contract' 'damages Assessment' 'jurisdictional Competence' 'special Leave to Appeal']

['contract Law' 'employment Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['breach of Contract' 'damages Assessment' 'jurisdictional Competence' 'special Leave to Appeal']

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

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Application for Special Leave / High Court Judgment on Objection to Competency of Appeal and Special Leave Application

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether the appeal to the High Court was competent under s. 33(4)(b) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)' 'Entitlement to damages exceeding the statutory threshold for appeal' 'Whether special leave to appeal should be granted']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Objection to competency of appeal upheld; application for special leave to appeal refused, both with costs.

Orders

['Objection to competency of appeal upheld with costs.' 'Application for special leave to appeal refused with costs.']

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.