WRAY v COOPER [1994] NSWCA 353

WRAY v COOPER [1994] NSWCA 353

The application to dismiss the appeal as incompetent must fail because, as explained, if the matters set forth in grounds 2 to 7 of the notice of appeal are established, they would warrant the upholding of the appeal; thus, the form of the notice does not render the appeal incompetent.

Parties
Plaintiff: Wray; Defendant: Cooper
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 1994
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Application (motion) Within Appeal Proceedings
Outcome
Application dismissed. Costs of application are costs in the appeal. By consent, the trial judge's costs order is stayed pending determination of the appeal or further order.

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wray

Plaintiff

Cooper

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interlocutory Application (motion) Within Appeal Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notice of appeal was defective so as to render the appeal incompetent under Pt 51 r 17A.

Ratio Decidendi

The application to dismiss the appeal as incompetent must fail because, as explained, if the matters set forth in grounds 2 to 7 of the notice of appeal are established, they would warrant the upholding of the appeal; thus, the form of the notice does not render the appeal incompetent.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Costs of application are costs in the appeal. By consent, the trial judge's costs order is stayed pending determination of the appeal or further order.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of application to be costs in the appeal.