Maclean v Brylewski [2022] NSWCA 217

Maclean v Brylewski [2022] NSWCA 217

The majority held that the impugned order was a case management decision concerning practice and procedure, did not determine the applicant's notice of motion, did not predetermine the outcome or deny procedural fairness, and did not cause sufficient prejudice or disclose an error warranting appellate intervention. The applicant therefore did not establish a basis for leave to appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Order in Possession Proceedings / Leave to Appeal Refused
Outcome
Summons filed 30 August 2022 seeking leave to appeal is refused, with costs.
Legal Topics
['procedural Fairness' 'case Management' 'leave to Appeal' 'possession Proceedings' 'representative Appointment for Deceased Estate' 'administrator Ad Litem' 'succession List Proceedings']
['civil Procedure' 'appeals' 'property Law' 'succession'] ['procedural Fairness' 'case Management' 'leave to Appeal' 'possession Proceedings' 'representative Appointment for Deceased Estate' 'administrator Ad Litem' 'succession List Proceedings']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Order in Possession Proceedings / Leave to Appeal Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the primary judge denied procedural fairness by fixing the applicant's notice of motion for hearing on the same date as the possession hearing rather than before it" 'Whether the Court of Appeal should grant leave to appeal from an interlocutory case management order' 'Whether the listing decision was affected by appellable error in the exercise of discretion']

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the impugned order was a case management decision concerning practice and procedure, did not determine the applicant's notice of motion, did not predetermine the outcome or deny procedural fairness, and did not cause sufficient prejudice or disclose an error warranting appellate intervention. The applicant therefore did not establish a basis for leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Summons filed 30 August 2022 seeking leave to appeal is refused, with costs.

Orders

  • ['Summons filed 30 August 2022 seeking leave to appeal is refused, with costs.']