Christopoulos v Levitt [2010] NSWCA 362

Christopoulos v Levitt [2010] NSWCA 362

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants' pleading concerning the earlier proceedings did not suggest any intelligible case capable of achieving relief, some claims were statute barred, and the allegations about conduct of the Court of Appeal proceedings did not show any basis for a different result. The separate costs-enforcement claim had only extremely slight prospects of establishing breach of duty causing loss, and any possible recovery appeared far below the amount claimed, so there was no sufficient chance of worthwhile relief to justify granting leave.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application From a District Court Decision Dismissing the Applicants' Proceedings
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'summary Dismissal' "solicitor's Duty" 'costs Order Enforcement' 'statute Barred Claims']
['procedure' 'professional Negligence' 'limitation of Actions'] ['leave to Appeal' 'summary Dismissal' "solicitor's Duty" 'costs Order Enforcement' 'statute Barred Claims']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application From a District Court Decision Dismissing the Applicants' Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants should be granted leave to appeal from the District Court's dismissal of their proceedings against the respondent solicitor." 'Whether the amended statement of claim disclosed any intelligible case with a chance of success concerning the conduct of earlier proceedings.' 'Whether claims relating to proceedings other than the Court of Appeal proceedings were statute barred.' 'Whether the claim concerning enforcement of a costs order against the Bebonis parties had sufficient prospects of producing worthwhile relief to justify leave to appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants' pleading concerning the earlier proceedings did not suggest any intelligible case capable of achieving relief, some claims were statute barred, and the allegations about conduct of the Court of Appeal proceedings did not show any basis for a different result. The separate costs-enforcement claim had only extremely slight prospects of establishing breach of duty causing loss, and any possible recovery appeared far below the amount claimed, so there was no sufficient chance of worthwhile relief to justify granting leave.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Application dismissed with costs.']