Karl Suleman Enterprizes Pty Ltd (in liq) v Pham [2013] NSWCA 75

Karl Suleman Enterprizes Pty Ltd (in liq) v Pham [2013] NSWCA 75

Expedition was refused because, despite the possibility of duplicated costs, the respondents faced potential prejudice from loss or delay of a trial date fixed since July 2012, no stay or vacation of that hearing date had been sought, and the Court could not practicably hear a concurrent leave application and appeal...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Leave to Appeal Proceedings / Application for Expedition of Proceedings Seeking Leave to Appeal From Refusal of Leave to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Application for expedition dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['expedition' 'leave to Appeal' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'discretionary Decision' 'security for Costs' 'managed Investment Schemes']
['civil Procedure' 'appeals' 'corporations Law'] ['expedition' 'leave to Appeal' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'discretionary Decision' 'security for Costs' 'managed Investment Schemes']

Source-derived case record

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

Interlocutory Application in Leave to Appeal Proceedings / Application for Expedition of Proceedings Seeking Leave to Appeal From Refusal of Leave to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether proceedings seeking leave to appeal should be expedited before the Common Law Division trial listed to commence in June.' 'Whether expedition would create an appreciable risk that the fixed hearing date would be lost and prejudice the respondents.' 'Whether the risk of duplicated costs and possible remittal justified expedition.']

Ratio Decidendi

Expedition was refused because, despite the possibility of duplicated costs, the respondents faced potential prejudice from loss or delay of a trial date fixed since July 2012, no stay or vacation of that hearing date had been sought, and the Court could not practicably hear a concurrent leave application and appeal and prepare a considered judgment before the June trial without disrupting other listed matters, particularly given the possible notice of contention on the Court's power to permit the amendments.

Court Disposition

Application for expedition dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for expedition is dismissed.' "The costs of the notice of motion for expedition are to be the respondents' costs of the appeal." 'The application for leave to appeal is to be listed as a leave only application on 15 April 2013.' 'Listing of the leave only application on 15 April 2013 is conditional...