Gillard v Hunter Wire Products Pty Ltd t/as Hunter Screen Products (No 2)

The appeal concerned an application for leave to appeal from a decision of the District Court. The applicant, Gillard, sought leave to appeal against a judgment given in favour of the respondent, Hunter Wire Products Pty Ltd t/as Hunter Screen Products. The core of the dispute revolved around the interpretation of the phrase "at issue" within section 127(2)(c) of the *District Court Act 1973* (NSW) in the context of an application for leave to appeal.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was to determine the meaning of "at issue" as it applied to the circumstances of the application for leave to appeal. This involved considering whether the substantive merits of the proposed appeal were "at issue" for the purposes of granting leave, or if the phrase referred to a broader concept of the matter being in contention. A secondary issue related to the costs of the application for leave to appeal, particularly in light of an unnecessary interlocutory hearing.

The Court of Appeal held that the phrase "at issue" in section 127(2)(c) of the *District Court Act 1973* referred to the substantive merits of the proposed appeal. The court found that the application for leave to appeal was unnecessary and that the interlocutory hearing on 23 October 2000 had been unproductive. Consequently, the court ordered that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the application for leave to appeal, with an exception for the costs associated with the interlocutory hearing, which were to be borne by each party. No order was made regarding the costs incurred specifically in relation to the application for costs of the leave to appeal.