Saito and Li v Ngo [2021] NSWSC 49

Saito and Li v Ngo [2021] NSWSC 49

Leave to appeal was refused and the appeal dismissed because the grounds did not identify an error of law, did not satisfy the criteria for leave on any mixed question of law and fact, sought to reagitate factual findings made by the Local Court, raised no issue of public importance or principle, and disclosed no reasonably clear injustice warranting appellate intervention.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Local Court Decision Concerning Debt Under Costs Agreements and Enforcement of Guarantee / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed; appellants ordered to pay lump sum costs, interest and judgment debt.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal From Local Court' 'question of Law' 'mixed Question of Law and Fact' 'reagitation of Findings of Fact' 'costs Agreement' 'guarantee' 'duress' 'unconscionability']
['civil Procedure' 'appeals' 'contract' 'legal Costs'] ['leave to Appeal From Local Court' 'question of Law' 'mixed Question of Law and Fact' 'reagitation of Findings of Fact' 'costs Agreement' 'guarantee' 'duress' 'unconscionability']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Local Court Decision Concerning Debt Under Costs Agreements and Enforcement of Guarantee / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellants had raised a question of law permitting an appeal from the Local Court as of right.' 'Whether leave should be granted for an appeal involving a mixed question of law and fact.' 'Whether the Local Court erred in rejecting allegations that the respondent breached the costs agreement by not personally attending the whole criminal trial.' 'Whether the Local Court erred in rejecting allegations that the second appellant entered the guarantee under duress, undue influence, unconscionability or mental incapacity.' "Whether the proceedings should have been adjourned pending the first appellant's criminal appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused and the appeal dismissed because the grounds did not identify an error of law, did not satisfy the criteria for leave on any mixed question of law and fact, sought to reagitate factual findings made by the Local Court, raised no issue of public importance or principle, and disclosed no reasonably clear injustice warranting appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed; appellants ordered to pay lump sum costs, interest and judgment debt.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused;' 'Appeal dismissed;' 'The plaintiff/appellants pay the defendant/respondent costs, being lump sum costs, and interest, which together with the judgment debt of $89,000 and interest of $33,531.96 shall be calculated at $138,532.96.' 'In addition to the foregoing, the plaintiff/appellants...