Mohareb v Palmer [2017] NSWCA 281

Mohareb v Palmer [2017] NSWCA 281

Leave to appeal was refused because the challenges to the refusal of leave to prosecute for perjury depended on factual and credibility assessments that were open to the primary judge and raised no issue of general public importance; the primary judge did not misapply the law in considering whether the alleged conduct was capable of amounting to contempt and in exercising discretion not to refer the respondent; and there was no reasonable likelihood that the Court would interfere with the District Court's interlocutory orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders Made in the District Court on 30 May 2017
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs in this Court.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Judgment of District Court' 'leave to Prosecute for Perjury' 'referral of Alleged Contempt to Supreme Court' 'allegation of Bias and Hostility' 'satellite Litigation']
['appeals' 'civil Procedure' 'criminal Law' 'contempt of Court' 'defamation'] ['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Judgment of District Court' 'leave to Prosecute for Perjury' 'referral of Alleged Contempt to Supreme Court' 'allegation of Bias and Hostility' 'satellite Litigation']

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 / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders Made in the District Court on 30 May 2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the District Court's refusal to grant leave to prosecute the respondent for perjury based on the first allegedly false statement." "Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the District Court's refusal to grant leave to prosecute the respondent for perjury based on the second allegedly false statement." 'Whether the primary judge erred in refusing to refer the respondent to the Supreme Court under s 203 of the District Court Act 1973 (NSW) for alleged contempt of court.' 'Whether allegations of bias and hostility by the primary judge had any basis.' 'Whether the proposed appeal raised an issue of general public importance or otherwise justified appellate intervention.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the challenges to the refusal of leave to prosecute for perjury depended on factual and credibility assessments that were open to the primary judge and raised no issue of general public importance; the primary judge did not misapply the law in considering whether the alleged conduct was capable of amounting to contempt and in exercising discretion not to refer the respondent; and there was no reasonable likelihood that the Court would interfere with the District Court's interlocutory orders.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs in this Court.

Orders

  • ['Refuse the application for leave to appeal from orders made in the District Court on 30 May 2017.' "Order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs in this Court."]