Duff v Blinco & Blinco

The appeal before the court involves Duff as the appellant and Blinco & Blinco as the respondents. The central issue in this matter pertains to the entitlement to royalties arising from the harvesting of timber by the respondents from the appellant's property. The primary judge had issued reasons finding in favour of the appellant regarding liability, but no determination on the amount of royalties had been made, nor were any formal orders issued. The respondents sought leave to appeal against the primary judge's reasons, which led to the question of whether their application for leave to appeal was competent.

The court was required to determine whether the respondents' application for leave to appeal was valid, considering the circumstances of the case. Given that the primary judge had found in favour of the appellant on the issue of liability, but had not yet determined the quantum of royalties or issued formal orders, the court had to assess the timing and nature of the respondents' appeal. The appeal was grounded on the basis that it was an appeal from an interlocutory decision, which required leave of the court.

The court held that the application for leave to appeal was competent. The reasons provided by the primary judge, which found in favour of the appellant on the issue of liability, constituted a significant judgment from which an appeal could be made. The fact that no determination had been made on the quantum of royalties or formal orders issued did not detract from the interlocutory nature of the appeal. The court found that the respondents' appeal was permissible under the rules governing appeals from interlocutory decisions. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was deemed competent, and the costs of the parties in respect of the mention were ordered to be costs in the application for leave to appeal.