A [a pseudonym] v E Co [a pseudonym]

[2018] NSWCA 188

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

A [a pseudonym] v E Co [a pseudonym] [2018] NSWCA 188

Hearing dates:

17 August 2018

Date of orders:

17 August 2018

Decision date:

23 August 2018

Before:

Leeming JA, Sackville AJA

Decision:

Leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Catchwords:

APPEALS – summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed – no issue of principle

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 578A
Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW), ss 4, 5

Cases Cited:

ADM v FDGK [2018] NSWSC 442
Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2) (1993) 176 CLR 300; [1993] HCA 6
Patsalis v State of New South Wales (2012) 81 NSWLR 742; [2012] NSWCA 307
Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

“A” [a pseudonym] (First Applicant)
“B” [a pseudonym] (Second Applicant)
“E Co” [a pseudonym] (First Respondent)
“EM Co” [a pseudonym] (Second Respondent)
“C” [a pseudonym] (Third Respondent)
“D” [a pseudonym] (Fourth Respondent)
“E” [a pseudonym] (Fifth Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
Mr J Priestley SC / Mr B Lloyd (Applicants)
Mr AJ McInerney SC / Mr N Kabilafkas (Respondents)

 

Solicitors:

  MJF Legal Pty Ltd (Respondents)

File Number(s):

2018/179695

 Decision under appeal 

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Equity Division

Citation:

[2018] NSWSC 646

Date of Decision:

14 May 2018

Before:

Ward CJ in Eq

File Number(s):

2014/198212

Judgment

1. THE COURT: The applicant seeks leave to appeal from interlocutory orders made by a Judge of the Equity Division (Ward CJ in Eq) on 14 May 2018 and on 25 May 2018. [1] The effect of the orders is that the hearing of the proceedings in the Equity Division is to be reopened to permit further evidence, including expert evidence, to be adduced and further submissions to be advanced as to the final orders that should be made. The orders provide for the matters to be relisted on 19-21 November for a three day hearing. Detailed directions have been given for the conduct of the hearing.

   1. ADM v FDGK (No 3) [2018] NSWSC 646 (Primary Judgment). The summons for leave to appeal names two applicants but only one has played an active part in the application.

2. The primary Judge delivered a 319 page judgment on 13 April 2018 following a trial occupying twenty-one hearing days. [2] The applicant says that in the Principal Judgment her Honour made detailed factual findings and reached a “considered and final determination” of the relief that should be granted. The applicant’s complaint is that in these circumstances it was not open to her Honour to accede to the respondents’ contention that the hearing should be reopened. According to the applicant, the primary Judge fell into error by allowing the respondents in effect to revisit matters that were the subject of finding and rulings in the Principal Judgment.

   2. ADM v FDGK [2018] NSWSC 442 (Principal Judgment).

3. At the conclusion of the hearing the Court ordered that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed…