Jandson Pty Ltd v Edmonds

Jandson Pty Ltd sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from an order of the primary judge concerning costs. The applicant contended that the primary judge had overlooked or failed to address a specific argument relating to costs.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether leave to appeal should be granted. This involved considering whether the applicant had exhausted available avenues to have the primary judge address the allegedly overlooked argument, and whether the interests of justice warranted the Court of Appeal intervening at this stage.

The Court of Appeal noted that it was open to Jandson Pty Ltd to have applied to the primary judge under rule 36.16 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules to vary or set aside the costs order, by reference to the argument that was not dealt with. As this procedural step had not been taken, and given that the Court of Appeal could not finally dispose of the costs issue without remitting the proceedings to the District Court, the Court concluded that the interests of justice did not support the grant of leave to appeal.

Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused, with costs ordered in favour of the respondent.