Hudson v Licciardo

Hudson was the applicant and Licciardo was the respondent in proceedings before the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The dispute concerned an application for leave to appeal an order made by a primary judge. The primary judge had remitted certain issues to MAS assessors for assessment. By the time the application for leave to appeal was heard, the assessments had already been made, and the applicant no longer sought to set aside the primary judge's order remitting the issues. Instead, the applicant sought to set aside certain interim findings made by the primary judge.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge's interim findings were the proper subject of an appeal. This involved considering the nature of interim findings made in the context of remitting issues for assessment and whether such findings constituted a final or interlocutory decision capable of being appealed.

The Court of Appeal determined that the primary judge's interim findings were not the proper subject of an appeal. The court reasoned that the primary judge's order remitting issues to MAS assessors was an interlocutory order, and the interim findings were part of that interlocutory process. Appeals generally lie from final orders, and the applicant's attempt to appeal interim findings that were part of an ongoing interlocutory process was not permissible.

Consequently, the summons for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court also made orders regarding the costs of the summons for leave to appeal.