Ezekiel-Hart v Council of the Law Society of the Act

The applicant, Emmanuel Ezekiel-Hart, sought leave to appeal from a decision of Crowe AJ in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The primary decision concerned directions for the preparation of substantive proceedings, where the respondents, the Council of the Law Society of the ACT and its President, had applied to strike out parts of the applicant's amended statement of claim and reply, and for security for costs. The applicant sought to have these applications heard concurrently with the substantive matter.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge erred in refusing to list the respondents' application to strike out parts of the pleadings and for security for costs at the same time as the substantive hearing, and whether the primary judge's decision was unreasonable or plainly unjust. The applicant also raised arguments concerning inadequate time to consider the application, bias, and estoppel, which had not been raised before the primary judge.

The Court of Appeal held that great caution must be exercised when granting leave to appeal on interlocutory matters concerning practice and procedure, to avoid delaying proceedings. It found no arguable error of fact or principle in the primary judge's decision, which was a discretionary case management decision. The primary judge's reasoning that the pleadings needed to be properly sorted out before a substantive hearing could proceed in an orderly manner was accepted. The Court concluded that addressing the strike-out application and security for costs before the substantive hearing was not unreasonable or plainly unjust and was consistent with the Court Procedures Act 2004 (ACT). The allegations of bias were also dismissed.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs, to be assessed at the conclusion of the substantive proceedings.