Batterham v Goldberg

The applicant, Batterham, sought leave to appeal a decision of the primary judge to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned an attempt by Batterham to re-litigate claims that had already been determined in previous proceedings. Goldberg was the respondent.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether there was an error on the part of the primary judge that warranted granting leave to appeal, and whether the grounds of appeal raised by the applicant were sufficiently arguable. Specifically, the court considered whether the primary judge had correctly found that the proceeding constituted an abuse of process by attempting to re-litigate concluded matters.

The Court of Appeal found that there was no issue of principle or any question of general public importance raised by the applicant's proposed appeal. Furthermore, the court concluded that the primary judge had not erred in finding that the proceeding was an attempt to re-litigate claims already determined in previous proceedings, and that it therefore constituted an abuse of process. The grounds of appeal were not considered sufficiently arguable to justify granting leave.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the summons seeking leave to appeal, with costs ordered in favour of the respondent.