Tanious v South Eastern Sydney Local Health District [2016] NSWCA 326

Tanious v South Eastern Sydney Local Health District [2016] NSWCA 326

Leave to appeal was refused because the application concerning Basten JA's decision was misconceived: the notice of motion involved a new matter, there was no proceeding on foot, and a judge of appeal had no jurisdiction to review another judge's orders in that way. Leave to appeal from Wilson J's decision was also refused because the proposed further amended statement of claim did not comply with the Court of Appeal's conditions requiring expert reports, and Wilson J made the only order available to her.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Determination of Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal From Decisions of Wilson J and Basten JA
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'amended Statement of Claim' 'conditions on Leave to Replead' 'expert Reports' "jurisdiction of a Judge of Appeal to Review Another Judge's Orders"]
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure' 'appeals'] ['leave to Appeal' 'amended Statement of Claim' 'conditions on Leave to Replead' 'expert Reports' "jurisdiction of a Judge of Appeal to Review Another Judge's Orders"]

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Determination of Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal From Decisions of Wilson J and Basten JA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to appeal from Basten JA's dismissal of the applicant's notice of motion seeking review of Wilson J's decision." "Whether leave should be granted to appeal from Wilson J's refusal to permit filing of a further amended statement of claim that did not comply with conditions imposed by the Court of Appeal." 'Whether a judge of the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to review a judgment and orders of another judge by notice of motion in a new matter.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the application concerning Basten JA's decision was misconceived: the notice of motion involved a new matter, there was no proceeding on foot, and a judge of appeal had no jurisdiction to review another judge's orders in that way. Leave to appeal from Wilson J's decision was also refused because the proposed further amended statement of claim did not comply with the Court of Appeal's conditions requiring expert reports, and Wilson J made the only order available to her.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused;' "The applicant pay the respondents' costs as agreed or assessed."]