Amaca Pty Ltd v Mathwin [2005] NSWCA 364

Amaca Pty Ltd v Mathwin [2005] NSWCA 364

Although it was strongly arguable that the primary judge applied the wrong test by departing from the prima facie costs consequence under SCR Pt 52A r 22(6) because he considered the opponent's 5 November 2004 offer reasonable, leave to appeal was refused because the claimant did not demonstrate substantial injustice: the impugned period was short, the amount at issue was small, there was no evidence the approach had set a precedent, and the applicable tests were well established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From a Costs Only Decision of the Dust Diseases Tribunal / Court of Appeal Dismissed the Application for Leave to Appeal With Costs
Outcome
Leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'arguable Error of Law' 'substantial Injustice' 'offers of Compromise' 'calderbank Offers' 'costs Discretion']
['appeals' 'civil Procedure' 'costs' 'dust Diseases Litigation'] ['leave to Appeal' 'arguable Error of Law' 'substantial Injustice' 'offers of Compromise' 'calderbank Offers' 'costs Discretion']

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 a Costs Only Decision of the Dust Diseases Tribunal / Court of Appeal Dismissed the Application for Leave to Appeal With Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted from a costs-only decision under s 32 of the Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989.' 'Whether the primary judge applied the wrong test in exercising the discretion to otherwise order under SCR Pt 52A r 22(6).' 'Whether any arguable error caused substantial injustice warranting a grant of leave to appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although it was strongly arguable that the primary judge applied the wrong test by departing from the prima facie costs consequence under SCR Pt 52A r 22(6) because he considered the opponent's 5 November 2004 offer reasonable, leave to appeal was refused because the claimant did not demonstrate substantial injustice: the impugned period was short, the amount at issue was small, there was no evidence the approach had set a precedent, and the applicable tests were well established.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal dismissed with costs.']