WENTWORTH v ROGERS [1997] NSWCA 339

WENTWORTH v ROGERS [1997] NSWCA 339

Leave to appeal is refused because the orders appealed were discretionary decisions within proper judicial bounds, and the specific point raised about Sperling J's order should be deferred to be dealt with at trial.

Parties
Claimant: Wentworth; Respondent: Rogers
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 June 1997
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
summons for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Exercise of Judicial Discretion, Malicious Prosecution
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Exercise of Judicial Discretion Malicious Prosecution

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wentworth

Claimant

Rogers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against discretionary orders made by the primary judge in malicious prosecution proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the exercise of the trial judge’s discretion was outside the bounds of a proper discretionary judgment
  3. 3 Whether the order of Sperling J should be the subject of appellate review at this stage

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal is refused because the orders appealed were discretionary decisions within proper judicial bounds, and the specific point raised about Sperling J's order should be deferred to be dealt with at trial.

Court Disposition

summons for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Summons for leave to appeal filed 12 March 1997 is dismissed.