Gillies v His Honour Judge Solomon DCJ [2024] NSWCA 146

Gillies v His Honour Judge Solomon DCJ [2024] NSWCA 146

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the proposed grounds raised an issue of principle, a question of public importance, or a reasonably clear injustice. The allegation of actual bias was unsupported and had been withdrawn below; the primary judge was correct that the requested jury trial concerned interlocutory motions raising no factual contest for a jury, and no error was shown in refusing to be satisfied that the interests of justice required a jury; the 6 October 2023 notice of motion remained on foot because no order had been made on it; and the transcript-alteration allegation was unsupported by evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decision Refusing a Motion for Jury Trial of Three Notices of Motion Seeking Summary Relief
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'jury Trial' 'interlocutory Applications' 'summary Judgment' 'summary Dismissal' 'strike Out' 'actual Bias' 'recusal' 'transcript Accuracy']
['civil Procedure' 'appeals'] ['leave to Appeal' 'jury Trial' 'interlocutory Applications' 'summary Judgment' 'summary Dismissal' 'strike Out' 'actual Bias' 'recusal' 'transcript Accuracy']

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 / Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decision Refusing a Motion for Jury Trial of Three Notices of Motion Seeking Summary Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted from an interlocutory decision refusing a jury trial for three motions seeking summary relief.' 'Whether the primary judge was affected by actual bias or denied procedural fairness by not recusing himself.' 'Whether s 85 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) permits or requires a jury trial for interlocutory motions involving no factual questions.' "Whether the primary judge erred by not determining the applicant's 6 October 2023 notice of motion." 'Whether there was evidence that the primary judge altered the transcript of the 5 December 2023 hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the proposed grounds raised an issue of principle, a question of public importance, or a reasonably clear injustice. The allegation of actual bias was unsupported and had been withdrawn below; the primary judge was correct that the requested jury trial concerned interlocutory motions raising no factual contest for a jury, and no error was shown in refusing to be satisfied that the interests of justice required a jury; the 6 October 2023 notice of motion remained on foot because no order had been made on it; and the transcript-alteration allegation was unsupported by evidence.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.' "Applicant to pay the respondents' costs of the application for leave to appeal."]