Cassegrain v Cassegrain - [2008] NSWSC 322

CITATION: Cassegrain v Cassegrain [2008] NSWSC 322

HEARING DATE(S): 09 April 2008

JUDGMENT DATE :
14 April 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Gzell J

DECISION: Orders under the Supreme Court Act 1970, s 51(1) removing the proceedings into the Court of Appeal

CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE - Supreme Court Procedure - Appeals - Appeal from decision of associate Judge awarding costs against appellant - Whether appeal lies to a single Judge of a Division of the Supreme Court or to the Court of Appeal - Whether the Supreme Court Rules 1970, Sch D, Pt 3 and Pt 60 r 17 should be read as excluding mechanical issues determined by an associate Judge

LEGISLATION CITED: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Civil Procedure Act 2005
Supreme Court Act 1970

CASES CITED: Coric v Grotto & Ors; Nelson v Grotto & Ors; Estate of late F A Grotto & 2 Ors [2007] NSWSC 1080

PARTIES: Denis Cassegrain - Plaintiff
Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd - Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 4640/06

COUNSEL: Mr G Colyer - Plaintiff
Mr C Bevan - Defendant

SOLICITORS: McCabe Terrill Lawyers Pty Ltd - Plaintiff
Evangelos Patakas & Associates - Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

GZELL J

MONDAY 14 APRIL 2008

4640/06 DENIS CASSEGRAIN v GERARD CASSEGRAIN & CO PTY LTD

JUDGMENT

1 By notice of motion the defendant, Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd, seeks to appeal from the orders of McLaughlin AsJ that it pay the costs of the plaintiff, Denis Cassegrain, of and incidental to the proceedings up to and including 18 September 2007 and an order that Mr Denis Cassegrain have liberty to have the costs order assessed forthwith.

2 A preliminary question arises whether the appeal lies to a single judge of the Supreme Court or, as of right or with leave, to the Court of Appeal.

3 The context in which that issue arises is as follows. Mr Denis Cassegrain commenced proceedings in the Equity Division of the Court by summons in which he sought pre-trail discovery of specified documents. He also sought costs and such further or other orders as the Court deemed fit.

4 The matter came before McLaughlin AsJ on 22 March 2007. His Honour made the following note and orders:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cassegrain v Cassegrain and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] NSWSC 322
Decision Date: 14 April 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cassegrain v Cassegrain involved the question of the appropriate court to hear an appeal against a decision of an associate Judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, who had awarded costs against the appellant. The dispute centred on whether the appeal should be heard by a single Judge of a Division of the Supreme Court or by the Court of Appeal. The legal issues that the court had to resolve were the interpretation of the relevant provisions in the Supreme Court Rules 1970, specifically Schedule D, Part 3 and Part 60, Rule 17, and the determination of the appropriate court to hear the appeal.

The court considered the language of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 and the legislative intent behind the creation of the associate Judges. It held that the rules should be interpreted in a way that gives effect to the legislative intent of providing a more efficient and cost-effective judicial system. The court found that the provisions in question were not intended to exclude mechanical issues determined by an associate Judge from being appealed to a single Judge of a Division of the Supreme Court. Instead, the court concluded that the rules should be read as allowing such appeals to be heard by a single Judge, unless the matter involved a significant question of law or an error of principle. In this case, the court found that the appeal did not involve such a significant question of law or an error of principle, and therefore, the appropriate court to hear the appeal was a single Judge of a Division of the Supreme Court.

The court further held that the interpretation of the rules that allowed for appeals of mechanical issues determined by an associate Judge to be heard by a single Judge was consistent with the broader objectives of the Supreme Court Rules 1970, which aimed to provide a more efficient and cost-effective judicial system. The court emphasised that this interpretation also ensured that parties were not unnecessarily burdened with the expense and delay of an appeal to the Court of Appeal for matters that did not involve significant questions of law or errors of principle.

The court's decision was that the appeal should be heard by a single Judge of a Division of the Supreme Court, and the order for costs awarded by the associate Judge was set aside. The case highlights the importance of carefully considering the language and intent behind court rules when determining the appropriate court to hear an appeal, and the need to balance efficiency and cost-effectiveness with the protection of parties' rights.

Orders