Menzies v Paccar Financial Pty Ltd (No 3) [2014] NSWCA 11
The review was allowed only to the extent necessary to vacate the appeal hearing dates and make new directions because Leeming JA's decision proceeded on the assumption that the evidential material in the Court Book could properly be treated as the Blue Appeal Book, but the Court Book was likely inadequate for the conduct of the appeal: it did not include material relied on for the adjournment application, may not include material relevant to the reopening application, and did not accommodate other material the appellants sought to rely on. However, the appellants' challenge based on UCPR r 51.24 certification and their late, unspecified proposed amendments did not establish error or...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 07 February 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Application for Review of Procedural Directions Under Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw), S 46(4) / Court of Appeal Review Application Before the Listed Appeal Hearing
- Outcome
- Application to review Leeming JA's judgment and orders of 21 January 2014 allowed to the extent necessary; appeal hearing dates vacated; further appeal book, submissions and case management directions made; costs to be costs in the appeal.
- Legal Topics
- ['review of Procedural Decision' 'vacation of Appeal Hearing Dates' 'appeal Book Preparation' 'ucpr R 51.24 Compliance' 'further Evidence on Appeal' 'self Represented Litigants']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Review of Procedural Directions Under Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw), S 46(4) / Court of Appeal Review Application Before the Listed Appeal Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the application to review the judgment and orders of Leeming JA of 21 January 2014 should be allowed to vacate the appeal hearing dates.' "Whether alleged non-compliance with UCPR r 51.24 concerning certified lists and collection of papers caused prejudice warranting interference with Leeming JA's orders." 'Whether the Court Book could properly stand as the Blue Appeal Book for the appeal, including material concerning the adjournment application and reopening application.' "Whether the appellants' indication that they wished to amend the notice of appeal justified vacating the hearing dates." 'Whether additional material sought to be relied on by the appellants should be organised through further Blue Appeal Book volumes and, where necessary, an application to rely on further evidence.']
Ratio Decidendi
The review was allowed only to the extent necessary to vacate the appeal hearing dates and make new directions because Leeming JA's decision proceeded on the assumption that the evidential material in the Court Book could properly be treated as the Blue Appeal Book, but the Court Book was likely inadequate for the conduct of the appeal: it did not include material relied on for the adjournment application, may not include material relevant to the reopening application, and did not accommodate other material the appellants sought to rely on. However, the appellants' challenge based on UCPR r 51.24 certification and their late, unspecified proposed amendments did not establish error or...
Court Disposition
Application to review Leeming JA's judgment and orders of 21 January 2014 allowed to the extent necessary; appeal hearing dates vacated; further appeal book, submissions and case management directions made; costs to be costs in the appeal.
Orders
- ['Allow the application to review the judgment and orders of Leeming JA of 21 January 2014 to the extent necessary to give effect to the following orders and directions.' 'Vacate the listing of the appeal for hearing on 10 and 11 February 2014.' 'Set aside orders (6) and (8) made on 21 January 2014.' 'Direct that...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment