Patial v Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd trading as Kailash Lawyers and Consultants [2025] FCA 113

Patial v Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd trading as Kailash Lawyers and Consultants [2025] FCA 113

No error was identified in the primary judge's refusal to grant leave to file a further statement of claim; the pleading was defective and the applicant failed to demonstrate error or injustice warranting a grant of leave. The allegation of apprehended bias was baseless, and leave to appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Prateek Patial; First Respondent: Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd trading as Kailash Lawyers and Consultants; Second Respondent: Koala Investment Property Pty Ltd trading as Koala Invest; Third Respondent: Kuber Investment Group Pty Ltd trading as Kuber Projects
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Determination of Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Orders, Apprehended Bias, Statement of Claim, Costs
Practice and Procedure Employment and Industrial Relations Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders Apprehended Bias Statement of Claim 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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prateek Patial

Applicant

Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd trading as Kailash Lawyers and Consultants

First Respondent

Koala Investment Property Pty Ltd trading as Koala Invest

Second Respondent

Kuber Investment Group Pty Ltd trading as Kuber Projects

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Determination of Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has made a sufficient case for the grant of leave to appeal
  2. 2 Whether there was error by the primary judge in refusing leave to file a further statement of claim
  3. 3 Whether there was apprehended bias on part of the primary judge

Ratio Decidendi

No error was identified in the primary judge's refusal to grant leave to file a further statement of claim; the pleading was defective and the applicant failed to demonstrate error or injustice warranting a grant of leave. The allegation of apprehended bias was baseless, and leave to appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the application, subject to any constraints expressed in Birketu Pty Ltd v Atanaskovic [2025] HCA 2.