D v Australian Financial Security Authority

The applicant, D, sought leave to appeal against two interlocutory decisions made in the District Court of New South Wales. The first decision, made by Mahony SC DCJ, refused D's application for leave to issue a subpoena. The second decision, made by Sidis ADCJ, refused D's application for leave to amend his pleadings. D was self-represented in the District Court proceedings and in his applications for leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether to grant D leave to appeal against both the refusal to allow the issuance of a subpoena and the refusal to allow amendment of pleadings. In essence, the court had to consider whether there were sufficient grounds to interfere with the discretionary decisions of the District Court judges.

Ward JA and Sackville AJA refused leave to appeal in respect of both impugned decisions. The court applied the principles governing appeals against interlocutory decisions, particularly where leave to appeal is required. The court considered the limitations on granting leave to a self-represented litigant to amend pleadings, and the general approach to granting leave to appeal against discretionary decisions.

Leave to appeal from the decision of Mahony SC DCJ was refused with costs. The summons seeking leave to appeal from the decision of Sidis ADCJ was dismissed with costs.