TEOH v HUNTERS HILL COUNCIL AND ANOR [NO 2] [2010] NSWCA 321

TEOH v HUNTERS HILL COUNCIL AND ANOR [NO 2] [2010] NSWCA 321

The Court dismissed the second application for leave to appeal because no new ground or argument was advanced, and there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant overturning the previous Full Court order refusing leave; the previous orders contained no error of fact or principle, and the rules and principles restrict reopening resolved controversies.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal; Second Application After Refusal of First
Outcome
Notice of motion of 10 August 2010 dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'judgments and Orders' 'reopening Final Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['leave to Appeal' 'judgments and Orders' 'reopening Final Orders']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal; Second Application After Refusal of First

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted in a second application after refusal of the first' 'Whether orders made can be set aside under Supreme Court Act s 46(4) or UCPR Pt 36.16(3A)' 'Interpretation and applicability of UCPR Pt 36.15(1) regarding setting aside orders']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the second application for leave to appeal because no new ground or argument was advanced, and there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant overturning the previous Full Court order refusing leave; the previous orders contained no error of fact or principle, and the rules and principles restrict reopening resolved controversies.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion of 10 August 2010 dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Notice of motion of 10 August 2010 dismissed with costs.']