ROY v MADDOCKS and ANOR [1998] NSWCA 198

ROY v MADDOCKS and ANOR [1998] NSWCA 198

The Supreme Court of New South Wales Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to revisit or recall judgments that have been finally determined, especially when the High Court has refused leave to appeal. The discharge of undertakings following final determination is correct in law.

Parties
Appellant: John Roy; Respondent: Leslie Maddocks (deceased, estate)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 March 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application to Recall/revisit Final Determination (post High Court Refusal of Leave)
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Dissolution of Partnership, Taking of Partnership Accounts, Appeal Procedure, Finality of Judgments, Undertakings and Stays Pending Appeal
Partnership Law Equity Civil Procedure Dissolution of Partnership Taking of Partnership Accounts Appeal Procedure Finality of Judgments Undertakings and Stays Pending Appeal

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Roy

Appellant

Leslie Maddocks (deceased, estate)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application to Recall/revisit Final Determination (post High Court Refusal of Leave)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court of New South Wales Court of Appeal has the power to recall and revisit a matter that has been finally disposed of, including refusal of special leave by the High Court
  2. 2 Whether there was any error in discharging the undertaking relating to proceeds of sale of partnership property after final disposition of litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of New South Wales Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to revisit or recall judgments that have been finally determined, especially when the High Court has refused leave to appeal. The discharge of undertakings following final determination is correct in law.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application is refused with costs.
  • Application is dismissed.