Dye v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 247

Dye v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 247

The appeal brought as of right was incompetent because leave was required and the formal orders must reflect this; the applicant's explanation for delay in seeking leave was adequate but leave to appeal was ultimately dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Vivienne Louise Dye; First Respondent: Commonwealth Bank of Australia; Second Respondent: Barbara Chapman
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Strike Out Motion and Orders Following Previous Reasons
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; appellant to pay costs of the respondents of that appeal.
Legal Topics
Appeal Procedure, Leave to Appeal, Extension of Time, Strike Out Motion
Civil Procedure Appeal Procedure Leave to Appeal Extension of Time Strike Out Motion

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 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vivienne Louise Dye

Applicant

Commonwealth Bank of Australia

First Respondent

Barbara Chapman

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Strike Out Motion and Orders Following Previous Reasons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appeal was validly brought as of right
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal was required
  3. 3 Adequacy of explanation for delay in seeking leave to appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal brought as of right was incompetent because leave was required and the formal orders must reflect this; the applicant's explanation for delay in seeking leave was adequate but leave to appeal was ultimately dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; appellant to pay costs of the respondents of that appeal.

Orders

  • The appeal initiated by Notice of Appeal filed 18 November 2010 is dismissed.
  • Appellant to pay costs of the Respondents of that appeal.