King v AG Australia Holdings Limited [2003] FCA 652

King v AG Australia Holdings Limited [2003] FCA 652

Leave to appeal refused because no error of principle or sufficiently arguable question was shown in the docket judge's exercise of discretion concerning particulars and the management of evidence; particulars provided were held to be adequate; no injustice or unfairness demonstrated sufficient to warrant appellate intervention.

Parties
Applicant: Shane Robert King; First Respondent: AG Australia Holdings Limited (ACN 054 573 401); Second Respondent: Grant Samuel & Associates Pty Limited (ACN 050 036 372); Third Respondent: David Mortimer; Fourth Respondent: Bruce Hogan; Fifth Respondent: Stewart Honer Steffey; Sixth Respondent: Ronald Ashton; Seventh Respondent: Marina Darling; Eighth Respondent: Andrew Kaldor; Ninth Respondent: Lloyd Lange; Tenth Respondent: David O'Halloran; Eleventh Respondent: Ian Pollard
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Motions for Leave to Appeal and Ancillary Relief Arising From Interlocutory Civil Orders / Interlocutory, Application for Leave to Appeal and Stay of Orders
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; application for stay of orders dismissed; costs awarded against third to eleventh respondents.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Orders, Particulars, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Practice and Procedure
Civil Procedure Interlocutory Orders Particulars Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Practice and Procedure

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shane Robert King

Applicant

AG Australia Holdings Limited (ACN 054 573 401)

First Respondent

Grant Samuel & Associates Pty Limited (ACN 050 036 372)

Second Respondent

David Mortimer

Third Respondent

Bruce Hogan

Fourth Respondent

Stewart Honer Steffey

Fifth Respondent

Ronald Ashton

Sixth Respondent

Marina Darling

Seventh Respondent

Andrew Kaldor

Eighth Respondent

Lloyd Lange

Ninth Respondent

David O'Halloran

Tenth Respondent

Ian Pollard

Eleventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motions for Leave to Appeal and Ancillary Relief Arising From Interlocutory Civil Orders / Interlocutory, Application for Leave to Appeal and Stay of Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against interlocutory orders refusing further and better particulars and refusing to alter the order for giving evidence;
  2. 2 Whether particulars provided by the applicant regarding misleading or deceptive conduct are sufficient;
  3. 3 Whether the pre-trial management decisions of the docket judge involved an error of principle justifying appellate intervention.

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal refused because no error of principle or sufficiently arguable question was shown in the docket judge's exercise of discretion concerning particulars and the management of evidence; particulars provided were held to be adequate; no injustice or unfairness demonstrated sufficient to warrant appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; application for stay of orders dismissed; costs awarded against third to eleventh respondents.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
  • Application for a stay of his Honour's orders dismissed.