Nicholls v Wilson & Partners Limited [2010] NSWCA 140

Nicholls v Wilson & Partners Limited [2010] NSWCA 140

The appellants' submissions did not comply with the Court's orders because they exceeded the 50 page limit and, more fundamentally, failed to comply with the substance of the rules governing fact appeals by not coherently identifying challenged findings, findings contended for, and supporting evidence. The appellants were required to file new compliant submissions and an exhaustive schedule, and the motion to treat Justice Young's orders as complied with was refused with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Ruling in a Court of Appeal Matter / Case Management Ruling Before Appeal Hearing Due to Commence on 26 July
Outcome
New directions made for compliant appeal submissions and schedule; appellant's motion refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['court of Appeal Written Submissions' 'fact Appeals' 'case Management' 'page Limits' 'costs' 'fresh Evidence References']
['procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['court of Appeal Written Submissions' 'fact Appeals' 'case Management' 'page Limits' 'costs' 'fresh Evidence References']

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

Procedural and Other Ruling in a Court of Appeal Matter / Case Management Ruling Before Appeal Hearing Due to Commence on 26 July

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellants' filed submissions complied with the Court's directions and the requirements for fact appeals." 'Whether incorporation by reference of submissions below was adequate for an appeal involving substantial challenges to findings of fact.' 'What further directions should be made for compliant submissions and a schedule of challenged findings and evidence.' "Whether the appellant's motion to have Justice Young's orders taken to have been complied with should be granted." 'Who should bear the costs of the case management application and the motion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants' submissions did not comply with the Court's orders because they exceeded the 50 page limit and, more fundamentally, failed to comply with the substance of the rules governing fact appeals by not coherently identifying challenged findings, findings contended for, and supporting evidence. The appellants were required to file new compliant submissions and an exhaustive schedule, and the motion to treat Justice Young's orders as complied with was refused with costs.

Court Disposition

New directions made for compliant appeal submissions and schedule; appellant's motion refused with costs.

Orders

  • ["Parties to draft short minutes to be sent to the President's Chambers no later than 4 pm Wednesday 9 June." 'Costs of today to be paid by the appellant.' 'The appellants are to file on or before 21 June submissions of no more than 50 pages and a schedule described in the reasons.' 'The schedule is to be an...