Stewart, N.M. & Anor v. Glenpitney Pty Ltd & Ors [1987] FCA 136

Stewart, N.M. & Anor v. Glenpitney Pty Ltd & Ors [1987] FCA 136

Leave to appeal from the interlocutory judgment was refused because the attack was on pleading adequacy, the pleadings had already changed, and no substantial injustice or resolution of a truly vital legal question would result from granting leave. The appeal would address only transitory matters, not issues of legal substance.

Parties
Applicant: Nancy Maris Stewart; Applicant: Adam Hunter Stewart; First Respondent: Glenpitney Pty. Ltd.; Second Respondent: Harold Kucko; Third Respondent: Lloyd John Williamson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 1987
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory (leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment)
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; application dismissed; costs awarded to applicants; time for oral application extended.
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Appeals, Pleadings, Costs
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Appeals Pleadings 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nancy Maris Stewart

Applicant

Adam Hunter Stewart

Applicant

Glenpitney Pty. Ltd.

First Respondent

Harold Kucko

Second Respondent

Lloyd John Williamson

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory (leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted from an interlocutory judgment concerning adequacy of pleadings under s.75B of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether substantial injustice would follow from refusal of leave to appeal
  3. 3 Appropriate tests for granting leave to appeal in interlocutory matters

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal from the interlocutory judgment was refused because the attack was on pleading adequacy, the pleadings had already changed, and no substantial injustice or resolution of a truly vital legal question would result from granting leave. The appeal would address only transitory matters, not issues of legal substance.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; application dismissed; costs awarded to applicants; time for oral application extended.

Orders

  • Time for making oral application under 0.52 r.10 extended to 19 March 1987.
  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed.