Manildra Flour Mills v Hammond [2004] NSWIRComm 328

Manildra Flour Mills v Hammond [2004] NSWIRComm 328

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the proposed grounds justified appellate intervention: the complaints about reasons and consequential orders provided no basis for leave, the alleged natural justice point concerned no more than part of the primary judge's reasoning and did not inject a new issue, the interest point did not attract leave, and the small amount at issue further supported refusal. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the respondent was awarded indemnity costs because of the considerations relied upon, the lack of merit and the refusal of leave.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal Unfair Contract / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Decision of Marks J
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed; respondent awarded costs on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contract' 'leave to Appeal' 'natural Justice' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'consequential Relief' 'interest on Verdict' 'indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Principle']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law' 'appellate Procedure' 'costs'] ['unfair Contract' 'leave to Appeal' 'natural Justice' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'consequential Relief' 'interest on Verdict' 'indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Principle']

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

Appeal Unfair Contract / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Decision of Marks J

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted in relation to alleged inadequate reasons and alleged failure to apply proper principles for consequential orders in s 106 proceedings.' 'Whether the first instance reasons involved a denial of natural justice by injecting a new issue into the proceedings.' 'Whether the award of interest from February 2000 rather than December 2000 warranted leave to appeal.' 'Whether the respondent should receive indemnity costs of the leave application and appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the proposed grounds justified appellate intervention: the complaints about reasons and consequential orders provided no basis for leave, the alleged natural justice point concerned no more than part of the primary judge's reasoning and did not inject a new issue, the interest point did not attract leave, and the small amount at issue further supported refusal. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the respondent was awarded indemnity costs because of the considerations relied upon, the lack of merit and the refusal of leave.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed; respondent awarded costs on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused.' 'Appeal dismissed.' 'The respondent is to have his costs on an indemnity basis.']