(2) Set aside order 1 made by Rothman J on 1 October 2024.
(3) Amend order 3 made by Rothman J on 1 October 2024 to provide:
(3) that Mr Golden is to pay the costs of the respondents’ notice of motion filed on 24 April 2023 other than those that are the subject of order 1 made by Wright J on 6 December 2023.
(4) Appeal otherwise dismissed.
(5) Mr Golden pay the costs of the respondents of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal.
Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE –– Court of Appeal –– Leave to appeal –– application for leave to appeal against order made under s 8 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act –– no appealable error –– orders varied –– appeal otherwise dismissed
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Golden v Howard
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Golden v Howard [2025] NSWCA 117
Case
[2025] NSWCA 117
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal of New South Wales, comprising Ward P, Payne and Ball JJA, considered an application for leave to appeal against an order made by Rothman J under section 8 of the *Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008* (NSW). The applicant, Mr Golden, sought to appeal the orders made by Rothman J on 1 October 2024.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether Rothman J had made an appealable error in the orders granted. The court was required to determine if the original orders were legally sound or if they contained errors that warranted intervention on appeal.
The Court of Appeal found that there was no appealable error in the substantive orders made by Rothman J, save for a minor amendment to one of the cost orders. The court granted leave to appeal, set aside one of the original orders, and amended another cost order to clarify the scope of costs payable by Mr Golden. The appeal was otherwise dismissed, and Mr Golden was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of both the application for leave to appeal and the appeal itself.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Leave to appeal granted.
(2) Set aside order 1 made by Rothman J on 1 October 2024.
(3) Amend order 3 made by Rothman J on 1 October 2024 to provide:
(3) that Mr Golden is to pay the costs of the respondents’ notice of motion filed on 24 April 2023 other than those that are the subject of order 1 made by Wright J on 6 December 2023.
(4) Appeal otherwise dismissed.
(5) Mr Golden pay the costs of the respondents of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal.