INTERTAN AUSTRALIA LIMITED (T/A TANDY ELECTRONICS v. DAVIDSON [2000] NSWCA 280

INTERTAN AUSTRALIA LIMITED (T/A TANDY ELECTRONICS v. DAVIDSON [2000] NSWCA 280

The principal procedural fairness ground had no substance because Tandy's written submissions dealt with the merits of the review notwithstanding the breadth of Mr Davidson's submissions. In any event, Armitage CCJ's order for a new trial was interlocutory and required leave under s 32(4) of the Compensation Court Act; the remaining grounds did not warrant leave. The appeal was therefore incompetent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Workers Compensation Appeal / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal From a Compensation Court Decision Ordering a New Trial
Outcome
Appeal struck out as incompetent.
Legal Topics
['appeal on Point of Law' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Order' 'procedural Fairness' 'order for New Trial']
['workers Compensation' 'appellate Procedure'] ['appeal on Point of Law' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Order' 'procedural Fairness' 'order for New Trial']

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

Workers Compensation Appeal / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal From a Compensation Court Decision Ordering a New Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Tandy was denied procedural fairness when Armitage CCJ delivered judgment without relisting the matter for oral argument after written submissions were filed.' "Whether the order discharging the Commissioner's findings and award and directing a new trial was interlocutory and therefore required leave to appeal under s 32(4) of the Compensation Court Act." 'Whether any other grounds in the notice of appeal would justify granting leave to appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The principal procedural fairness ground had no substance because Tandy's written submissions dealt with the merits of the review notwithstanding the breadth of Mr Davidson's submissions. In any event, Armitage CCJ's order for a new trial was interlocutory and required leave under s 32(4) of the Compensation Court Act; the remaining grounds did not warrant leave. The appeal was therefore incompetent.

Court Disposition

Appeal struck out as incompetent.

Orders

  • ['Appeal struck out as incompetent.' "The Appellant is to pay the Respondent's costs in the appeal."]