Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: BRUTON v NEW SOUTH WALES INSURANCE MINISTERIAL CORPORATION [1994] NSWCA 34 Decision date: 06 December 1994
See Attachment (PDF)
Details
- AGLC
- Bruton v New South Wales Insurance Ministerial Corporation [1994] NSWCA 34
- Case
- [1994] NSWCA 34
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The New South Wales Court of Appeal heard an appeal by Bruton against a decision of the District Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned an application for leave to appeal against an order made by a judge of the District Court in interlocutory proceedings.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the District Court judge had erred in refusing to grant Bruton leave to appeal against the interlocutory order. This required the Court of Appeal to consider the principles governing the grant of leave to appeal from interlocutory decisions in New South Wales.
The Court of Appeal held that the District Court judge had correctly applied the principles for granting leave to appeal. It was noted that leave to appeal from an interlocutory order is generally only granted where there are substantial reasons to do so, such as where the order is attended by error and its consequences are serious. In this instance, the Court found no substantial error in the judge's decision to refuse leave, nor any compelling reason to interfere with that exercise of discretion.
The appeal was dismissed.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the District Court judge had erred in refusing to grant Bruton leave to appeal against the interlocutory order. This required the Court of Appeal to consider the principles governing the grant of leave to appeal from interlocutory decisions in New South Wales.
The Court of Appeal held that the District Court judge had correctly applied the principles for granting leave to appeal. It was noted that leave to appeal from an interlocutory order is generally only granted where there are substantial reasons to do so, such as where the order is attended by error and its consequences are serious. In this instance, the Court found no substantial error in the judge's decision to refuse leave, nor any compelling reason to interfere with that exercise of discretion.
The appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.