Mohareb v Kelso (No 2) [2017] NSWCA 173

Mohareb v Kelso (No 2) [2017] NSWCA 173

No error, misunderstanding, or new circumstance was established which could justify reopening or varying the refusal of leave to appeal or the related costs order; the application merely reargued issues already determined.

Parties
Applicant: Nader Mohareb; First Respondent: Alexander Edward Kelso; Second Respondent: Saratoga Marine Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: John Alexander Kelso; Fourth Respondent: Leetec Pty Ltd; Fifth Respondent: Laurence Geoffrey Leeson; Sixth Respondent: Roderick Gerrard Smith
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion (application to Vary Orders) in Appellate Proceedings / Application to Reopen or Vary Orders Following Refusal of Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application to vary dismissed. No order as to costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Variation of Orders, Reopening Applications, Costs
Practice and Procedure Leave to Appeal Variation of Orders Reopening Applications Costs

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nader Mohareb

Applicant

Alexander Edward Kelso

First Respondent

Saratoga Marine Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

John Alexander Kelso

Third Respondent

Leetec Pty Ltd

Fourth Respondent

Laurence Geoffrey Leeson

Fifth Respondent

Roderick Gerrard Smith

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion (application to Vary Orders) in Appellate Proceedings / Application to Reopen or Vary Orders Following Refusal of Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should reopen or vary its earlier order refusing leave to appeal
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness or there was a misapprehension by the court
  3. 3 Whether costs orders should be varied in favour of the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

No error, misunderstanding, or new circumstance was established which could justify reopening or varying the refusal of leave to appeal or the related costs order; the application merely reargued issues already determined.

Court Disposition

Application to vary dismissed. No order as to costs of the motion.

Orders

  • Dismiss the notice of motion filed 26 May 2017.
  • No order as to the costs of the motion.