Capital Property Projects (ACT) Pty Ltd v Planning and Land Authority (ACT)

Capital Property Projects (ACT) Pty Ltd and others (the applicants) sought leave to appeal an interlocutory judgment of Gray J in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The dispute concerned an order made by Gray J deciding a separate question in proceedings between the applicants and the Planning and Land Authority (the respondent).

The primary legal issue before Refshauge J was whether the order of Gray J, which determined a separate question, was an order concerning practice and procedure, and if so, whether leave to appeal should be granted. This involved considering the discretion to grant leave to appeal interlocutory decisions and the principles applicable to such discretion, particularly in light of section 21 of the *Human Rights Act 2004* (ACT).

Refshauge J determined that the applicants should be granted leave to appeal. The court extended the time for the applicants to apply for leave to appeal and then granted that leave. The costs associated with the application for leave to appeal were to be costs in the substantive appeal.