Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Barel v Barel [2024] NSWCA 257 Hearing dates: 15 October 2024 Date of orders: 30 October 2024 Decision date: 30 October 2024 Before: Gleeson JA at [1];
McHugh JA at [53];
Basten AJA at [54].Decision: (1) Refuse the extension of time to seek leave to appeal from order (4) made by Russell DCJ on 3 May 2023 and order (1) made by Fitzsimmons DCJ on 21 June 2024.
(2) Refuse leave to appeal from the orders made by Fitzsimmons DCJ on 9 August 2024.
(3) Summons seeking leave to appeal be dismissed.
(4) The first and second applicants to pay the respondent’s costs in this Court.
Catchwords: APPEALS — Leave to appeal — Where garnisheed amount paid into court after default judgment set aside — Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 124A — Where defendant applied for payment out of funds in court — Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 41.3 — Where some funds released — Where defendant applied to vary order and obtain release of balance of funds in court — UCPR r 36.16 — Where variation application dismissed — Whether Court proceeded on misapprehension of facts or relevant law — Where inordinate delay in seeking leave — Whether prejudice occasioned to the respondent — Where underlying proceedings since been heard and judgment reserved — Whether utility in grant of extension of time or grant of leave to appeal
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 16, 56, 57, 58, 124A
District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 127(2)(a)
Justice Legislation Amendment Act (No 2) 2017 (NSW), Sch 1[5]
Local Court Act 2007 (NSW), s 30
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 36.15, 36.16(1), 36.16(3A), 41.3, 51.10
Cases Cited: Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2) (1993) 176 CLR 300; [1993] HCA 6
Barel v Barel [2023] NSWDC 135
Barel v Barel [2023] NSWDC 330
Be Financial Pty Ltd as Trustee for Be Financial Operations Trust v Das [2012] NSWCA 164
Commonwealth v McCormack (1984) 155 CLR 273; [1984] HCA 57
De L v Director-General, NSW Department of Community Services (No 2) (1997) 190 CLR 207; [1997] HCA 14
Elford v Minty [2017] NSWSC 1455
Heydon v NRMA Limited (No 2) (2001) 53 NSWLR 600; [2001] NSWCA 445
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Manhari Recycling Pty Ltd v Compass Global Holdings Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 252
Nanschild v Pratt [2011] NSWCA 85
Power v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 77
Production Spray Painting & Panel Beating Pty Ltd v Newnham (No 2) (1991) 27 NSWLR 659
Proprietors of Strata Plan 5399 v Feehan (1996) 8 BPR 16,211
Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services v Smith (2017) 95 NSWLR 597; [2017] NSWCA 206
State of New South Wales v Hollingsworth (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 283
Tomko v Palasty (No 2) (2007) 71 NSWLR 61; [2007] NSWCA…
Continue reading Barel v Barel
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Barel v Barel [2024] NSWCA 257
- Case
- [2024] NSWCA 257
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the District Court judge had proceeded on a misapprehension of facts or relevant law when dismissing the applicants' application to vary an earlier order and obtain the release of the balance of the funds. The Court also considered whether to grant an extension of time to seek leave to appeal, given the inordinate delay, the prejudice occasioned to the respondent, and the fact that the underlying proceedings had already been heard and judgment reserved.
The Court of Appeal refused the extension of time to seek leave to appeal from the District Court orders. It found that there was no utility in granting an extension or leave to appeal, particularly in light of the significant delay and the fact that the substantive proceedings had concluded. Consequently, the summons seeking leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Refuse the extension of time to seek leave to appeal from order (4) made by Russell DCJ on 3 May 2023 and order (1) made by Fitzsimmons DCJ on 21 June 2024.
(2) Refuse leave to appeal from the orders made by Fitzsimmons DCJ on 9 August 2024.
(3) Summons seeking leave to appeal be dismissed.
(4) The first and second applicants to pay the respondent’s costs in this Court.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.