Mohareb v Kelso (No 3) [2018] NSWCA 250

Mohareb v Kelso (No 3) [2018] NSWCA 250

The applicant did not establish any compelling reason or error warranting appellate intervention in the trial judge’s decision to refuse an adjournment. The grounds advanced lacked merit and the transcript did not support any claim of procedural unfairness or bias.

Parties
Applicant: Nader Mohareb; First Respondent: Alexander Edward Kelso; Second Respondent: John Alexander Kelso; Third Respondent: Saratoga Marine Ltd; Fourth Respondent: Laurence Geoffrey Leeson; Fifth Respondent: Leetec Pty Limited; Sixth Respondent: Roderick Gerrard Smith; Seventh Respondent: Taylor Booth
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal (interlocutory) / Application for Leave to Appeal and Motion for Stay Before Court of Appeal
Outcome
Summons for leave to appeal and motion for stay dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Adjournment, Procedural Orders, Appeals – Leave to Appeal, Refusal to Adjourn
Civil Procedure Adjournment Procedural Orders Appeals – Leave to Appeal Refusal to Adjourn

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nader Mohareb

Applicant

Alexander Edward Kelso

First Respondent

John Alexander Kelso

Second Respondent

Saratoga Marine Ltd

Third Respondent

Laurence Geoffrey Leeson

Fourth Respondent

Leetec Pty Limited

Fifth Respondent

Roderick Gerrard Smith

Sixth Respondent

Taylor Booth

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal (interlocutory) / Application for Leave to Appeal and Motion for Stay Before Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted from an interlocutory refusal to adjourn District Court proceedings
  2. 2 Whether a stay of District Court proceedings should be granted pending appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not establish any compelling reason or error warranting appellate intervention in the trial judge’s decision to refuse an adjournment. The grounds advanced lacked merit and the transcript did not support any claim of procedural unfairness or bias.

Court Disposition

Summons for leave to appeal and motion for stay dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Summons for leave to appeal dismissed with costs
  • Motion for stay dismissed with costs