Crowley v Glissan

Crowley (appellant) sought leave to appeal against an interlocutory order made by the Supreme Court of Queensland, which had refused to set aside a writ of summons. Glissan (respondent) was the plaintiff in the original proceedings. The dispute concerned the validity of the service of the writ.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the High Court of Australia was whether the appellant, having failed to appeal an interlocutory order refusing to set aside a writ, could subsequently challenge that interlocutory order on an appeal from the final judgment in the same proceedings.

Griffith C.J. and Barton J. held that an interlocutory order, if not appealed within the time prescribed for appealing such orders, becomes final and binding. They reasoned that to allow a party to raise the same objections to an interlocutory order on an appeal from the final judgment would undermine the finality of interlocutory decisions and create uncertainty in litigation. The court applied the principle that interlocutory orders, unless appealed within the relevant time limits, are not subject to review on a subsequent appeal from the final judgment.

Leave to appeal was refused.