LAPORTE GROUP AUSTRALIA LTD v VATSELIAS AND ORS [1992] NSWCA 129

LAPORTE GROUP AUSTRALIA LTD v VATSELIAS AND ORS [1992] NSWCA 129

The orders of Young J were interlocutory because damages and some issues as to costs remained to be determined; leave to appeal was therefore required under s101(1)(e) of the Supreme Court Act 1970.

Parties
Claimant: Laporte Group Australia Ltd; Respondent: Vatselias and Ors (first, second and ninth opponents); Respondent: Vatselias and Ors (third to eighth opponents)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 1992
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Motion for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
leave to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Interlocutory or Final Orders, Leave to Appeal, Supreme Court Act 1970 S101(1)(e)
Practice and Procedure Interlocutory or Final Orders Leave to Appeal Supreme Court Act 1970 S101(1)(e)

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 1 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laporte Group Australia Ltd

Claimant

Vatselias and Ors (first, second and ninth opponents)

Respondent

Vatselias and Ors (third to eighth opponents)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Motion for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the orders of Young J were interlocutory and required leave to appeal under s101(1)(e) of the Supreme Court Act 1970

Ratio Decidendi

The orders of Young J were interlocutory because damages and some issues as to costs remained to be determined; leave to appeal was therefore required under s101(1)(e) of the Supreme Court Act 1970.

Court Disposition

leave to appeal granted

Orders

  • Grant leave to appeal
  • Return the proceedings to the Registrar for the purpose of fixing an appeal hearing on an expedited basis