Bertram Trading Co Pty Ltd v Landsburys (Aust) Pty Ltd
Case
•
[1999] NSWCA 260
•3 August 1999
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Bertram Trading Co Pty Ltd v Landsburys (Aust) Pty Ltd [1999] NSWCA 260
[1999] NSWCA 260
3 August 1999
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Bertram Trading Co Pty Ltd (the appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of the District Court. Landsburys (Aust) Pty Ltd (the respondent) was the other party to the proceedings. The core of the dispute concerned whether the appellant had a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal or whether leave to appeal was required.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was the effect of amendments to the District Court Act 1973 (NSW) that had been made retrospectively. Specifically, the court had to determine whether these amendments conferred an appeal as of right or whether an application for leave to appeal was still necessary in the circumstances of the case.
The Court of Appeal held that the retrospective amendments to the District Court Act did not operate to grant an appeal as of right in this instance. The court reasoned that the amendments, while retrospective, did not alter the fundamental nature of the appeal as requiring leave. Consequently, the appeal was not properly before the court as an appeal as of right.
The Court of Appeal ordered that the appeal be struck out and that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the application. The appellant's application for leave to appeal was also dismissed with costs.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was the effect of amendments to the District Court Act 1973 (NSW) that had been made retrospectively. Specifically, the court had to determine whether these amendments conferred an appeal as of right or whether an application for leave to appeal was still necessary in the circumstances of the case.
The Court of Appeal held that the retrospective amendments to the District Court Act did not operate to grant an appeal as of right in this instance. The court reasoned that the amendments, while retrospective, did not alter the fundamental nature of the appeal as requiring leave. Consequently, the appeal was not properly before the court as an appeal as of right.
The Court of Appeal ordered that the appeal be struck out and that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the application. The appellant's application for leave to appeal was also dismissed with costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Jurisdiction
-
Costs
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Rocter Tanks Pty Ltd v Adam and Ors No. Scciv-00-697 [2001] SASC 285
Cases Citing This Decision
8
Bourke v Styche
[2024] ACTSC 62
Bourke v Styche
[2024] ACTSC 62
Dykes v Bunnings Group Limited
[2015] ACTSC 141
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
0
The Commonwealth v SCI Operations Pty Ltd
[1998] HCA 20
Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd
[1999] HCA 9
The Commonwealth v SCI Operations Pty Ltd
[1998] HCA 20