Drummond & Anor v Gordian Runoff Limited ACN 052 179 647

Case [2025] HCADisp 54


DRUMMOND & ANOR

v

GORDIAN RUNOFF LIMITED ACN 052 179 647

[2025] HCADisp 54
S140/2024

  1. The applicants seek special leave to appeal from the whole of the majority judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Stern JA, Mitchelmore JA agreeing, White JA dissenting), which dismissed an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Rees J).

  2. The proposed appeal has insufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave.

  3. Special leave to appeal is refused with costs.

    Gageler CJ

    Gordon J

    Edelman J

    Steward J

    Gleeson J

    Jagot J

    Beech-Jones J

    6 March 2025

Details
AGLC
Drummond & Anor v Gordian Runoff Limited ACN 052 179 647 [2025] HCADisp 54
Case
[2025] HCADisp 54
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Drummond and Anor, sought special leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. This appeal was in relation to a judgment from the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had dismissed an appeal. The respondents to the application were Gordian Runoff Limited ACN 052 179 647. The applicants were contesting the dismissal of their appeal by the Court of Appeal, which had upheld the original judgment of Rees J in the Supreme Court.

The legal issues before the court included whether the Court of Appeal had correctly interpreted the relevant statutory provisions and whether the trial judge had properly exercised his discretion in reaching the decision that he did. The applicants argued that there were errors in the Court of Appeal's interpretation of the law and in the exercise of judicial discretion. They contended that these errors were significant enough to warrant a re-evaluation of the case.

The court found that the proposed appeal did not have sufficient prospects of success to justify granting special leave. The court considered the arguments presented by the applicants and concluded that the Court of Appeal's judgment was sound and that there were no grounds for overturning it. The court held that the applicants had not demonstrated that the appeal had a real chance of succeeding. Accordingly, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed, and the costs of the application were awarded against the applicants.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.