David Harold Eastman v Commissioner for Housing in the Australian Capital Territory

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, constituted by Gray P, Penfold and Lander JJ, considered an application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory decision made by the Master. The applicant, David Harold Eastman, sought to appeal this decision, but the Court was required to determine the nature and competence of such an appeal.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the appeal brought by Mr Eastman was competent under the relevant legislation, specifically section 9 of the *Supreme Court Act 1933* (ACT). This required the Court to interpret the statutory provisions governing appeals from interlocutory decisions made by a Master.

The Court reasoned that the appeal, as presented, did not conform to the requirements of section 9 of the *Supreme Court Act 1933* (ACT). Consequently, the Court found the purported appeal to be incompetent. The appeal was therefore dismissed.