Hassoun v Wesfarmers General Insurance Limited t/a Lumley General

The applicant, Mr. Hassoun, sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the primary judge who had refused to vacate an order requiring Mr. Hassoun to provide security for costs and had dismissed his statement of claim for want of prosecution. The respondent was Wesfarmers General Insurance Limited trading as Lumley General.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether Mr. Hassoun had demonstrated any grounds that justified the grant of leave to appeal the primary judge's decision. This involved considering whether the primary judge had erred in law or fact in refusing to vacate the security for costs order and in dismissing the statement of claim for want of prosecution.

The Court of Appeal considered the principles governing applications for leave to appeal interlocutory decisions, particularly where the grounds of appeal relate to the exercise of discretion by the primary judge. The Court found that no arguable error of law or fact had been demonstrated by the applicant, and that the primary judge's decision was well-founded. The Court concluded that the applicant had failed to show any compelling reason to grant leave to appeal.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.