Kelton & Brady and Anor

The matter involved Kelton and Brady, who were the applicants, and two other parties, referred to as the first and second respondents. The applicants sought leave to appeal against an earlier decision made by Judge Cassidy on 18 May 2017, which had granted the first respondent leave to rely on a Notice of Contention. This decision was subsequently challenged by the applicants, who argued that it should be dismissed. The case was heard in a higher court, which had jurisdiction to review the decision made by Judge Cassidy.

The primary legal issue that the court was required to decide was whether the applicants had grounds to appeal the earlier decision. The applicants argued that the decision was flawed and should be overturned, while the respondents contended that the decision was correct and should be upheld. The court had to consider the merits of the appeal and determine whether the applicants had demonstrated that the earlier decision was incorrect or unjust.

In its reasoning, the court found that the applicants had not provided sufficient grounds for the appeal to be successful. The court noted that the earlier decision was a valid exercise of the judge's discretion and that there was no evidence to suggest that it was flawed or unjust. The court also found that the applicants had not demonstrated that the decision had caused them significant harm or prejudice. As a result, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and denied the applicants' request to overturn the earlier decision.

The court also granted leave to the applicants to rely upon the written outline of argument in reply filed on their behalf, and to the first respondent to rely upon a Notice of Contention exhibited to the affidavit of Ms J filed on 25 August 2017. The court ordered that the applicants pay the costs of the first and second respondents of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal within twenty-eight (28) days of an amount being agreed in writing between the parties as to those costs, or failing such agreement within twenty-eight (28) days of assessment in the amounts so assessed. The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.