Katherine Martin v Kate Tanzer

Katherine Martin sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision made by Higgins CJ in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The underlying dispute concerned a claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. The interlocutory decision related to the application of section 136 of the *Road Transport (Third-Party Insurance) Act 2008* (ACT), which governs compulsory conferences, and the issue of certificates of readiness.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the single judge's discretion under section 136 of the *Road Transport (Third-Party Insurance) Act 2008* (ACT) had been exercised incorrectly, and whether the decision was attended with sufficient doubt or would result in substantial injustice if left unreversed. These questions were central to determining whether leave to appeal should be granted.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, indicating that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant a full appeal. The decision to grant leave suggests that the Court considered the applicant's arguments regarding the judge's discretion and the potential for doubt or injustice to be arguable. The Court ordered that the applicant file a Notice of Appeal within 21 days, and that the costs of the application for leave to appeal and the application for a stay would be costs in the appeal itself.