von Reisner v Chepurin [2011] NSWCA 162

von Reisner v Chepurin [2011] NSWCA 162

The order dismissing the summons for transfer and consolidation did not finally dispose of the rights of the parties. The appellant's District Court and Common Law proceedings remained on foot, and a fresh application for removal of the District Court proceedings could be made if the Common Law proceedings were properly formulated. The decision was therefore interlocutory, leave to appeal was required, and the current appeal was incompetent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Whether an Order Dismissing Proceedings Seeking Transfer and Consolidation Was Final or Interlocutory / Competency of Appeal Referred by Registrar; Application for Dismissal Under Part 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['final and Interlocutory Judgments' 'competency of Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'transfer and Consolidation of Proceedings' 'dismissal Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules Pt 13.4']
['civil Procedure' 'courts and Procedure'] ['final and Interlocutory Judgments' 'competency of Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'transfer and Consolidation of Proceedings' 'dismissal Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules Pt 13.4']

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

Appeal Concerning Whether an Order Dismissing Proceedings Seeking Transfer and Consolidation Was Final or Interlocutory / Competency of Appeal Referred by Registrar; Application for Dismissal Under Part 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Bergin CJ in Eq's decision dismissing the summons to remove District Court proceedings into the Supreme Court and consolidate them with Common Law proceedings was an interlocutory decision requiring leave to appeal or a final decision appealable as of right." 'Whether the appeal was competent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The order dismissing the summons for transfer and consolidation did not finally dispose of the rights of the parties. The appellant's District Court and Common Law proceedings remained on foot, and a fresh application for removal of the District Court proceedings could be made if the Common Law proceedings were properly formulated. The decision was therefore interlocutory, leave to appeal was required, and the current appeal was incompetent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']