Barel v Barel [2024] NSWCA 257

Barel v Barel [2024] NSWCA 257

Extension of time to seek leave to appeal was refused due to inordinate, unexplained delay, prejudice to the respondent, lack of any fairly arguable case for leave, inconsistent conduct by the applicant, and absence of utility given the underlying proceedings; leave to appeal was refused because the interlocutory orders resulted from proper exercise of discretion under s 124A and applicable rules, and no error sufficiently arguable exists; the applications for leave and extension of time raised no issues of principle or public importance, and reopening would serve no practical purpose.

Parties
First Applicant: Linda Barel; Second Applicant: Linda Barel as representative of the estate of the late Raphael Barel; Respondent: Elie Barel
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Extension of Time
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal and extension of time refused; summons dismissed; applicants to pay respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Extension of Time, Garnishee Orders, Restitution, Interlocutory Judgments
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Extension of Time Garnishee Orders Restitution Interlocutory Judgments

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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linda Barel

First Applicant

Linda Barel as representative of the estate of the late Raphael Barel

Second Applicant

Elie Barel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time to seek leave to appeal should be granted from interlocutory orders.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted from District Court orders concerning repayment and release of garnisheed funds.
  3. 3 Whether the exercise of discretion under Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 124A allowed or required repayment of garnisheed monies.

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time to seek leave to appeal was refused due to inordinate, unexplained delay, prejudice to the respondent, lack of any fairly arguable case for leave, inconsistent conduct by the applicant, and absence of utility given the underlying proceedings; leave to appeal was refused because the interlocutory orders resulted from proper exercise of discretion under s 124A and applicable rules, and no error sufficiently arguable exists; the applications for leave and extension of time raised no issues of principle or public importance, and reopening would serve no practical purpose.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal and extension of time refused; summons dismissed; applicants to pay respondent's costs.

Orders

  • Refuse extension of time to seek leave to appeal from order (4) made by Russell DCJ on 3 May 2023 and order (1) made by Fitzsimmons DCJ on 21 June 2024.
  • Refuse leave to appeal from the orders made by Fitzsimmons DCJ on 9 August 2024.