John Anthony Arena Pty Ltd v Franpina Developments Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 139

John Anthony Arena Pty Ltd v Franpina Developments Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 139

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal concerned a discretionary costs order and raised no issue of principle, question of general public importance or reasonably clear substantial injustice. It was open to the primary judge to find that the applicants capitulated because the respondent obtained the substantive relief it sought, namely the setting aside of the Put and Call Option Deed, and no House v The King error or inadequacy of reasons was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From a Costs Order / Court of Appeal Leave Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal From Costs Order' 'discretionary Costs Orders' 'capitulation After Consent Orders' 'proceedings Dismissed by Consent']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'appeals'] ['leave to Appeal From Costs Order' 'discretionary Costs Orders' 'capitulation After Consent Orders' 'proceedings Dismissed by Consent']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal From a Costs Order / Court of Appeal Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to appeal from a costs order made after proceedings were resolved by consent orders.' 'Whether the primary judge erred in concluding that the applicants capitulated to the respondent by consenting to the Put and Call Option Deed being set aside.' "Whether the primary judge's costs discretion miscarried by failing to take into account that other claims and alternative relief were dismissed or not granted." "Whether the primary judge gave inadequate reasons for rejecting the applicants' submission about the significance of the respondent's claims being dismissed."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal concerned a discretionary costs order and raised no issue of principle, question of general public importance or reasonably clear substantial injustice. It was open to the primary judge to find that the applicants capitulated because the respondent obtained the substantive relief it sought, namely the setting aside of the Put and Call Option Deed, and no House v The King error or inadequacy of reasons was shown.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.']