Kevin David Neylon v Raymond William Carle Summary

[2000] QCA 350

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA
THOMAS JA
MOYNIHAN J

Appeal No 3442 of 2000

KEVIN DAVID NEYLON Respondent (Plaintiff)

and

RAYMOND WILLIAM CARLE Appellant (Defendant)

BRISBANE

..DATE 24/08/2000

JUDGMENT

McPHERSON JA: I will say only this, the Court has debated with Mr Eleftheriou on behalf of the applicant and Mr Neylon in person some of the issues and problems that we see arising in this rather ill-fated litigation. Our attempts to find some way out of the matter other than litigation have, at any rate so far, not been successful. In the circumstances, and looking at the matter simply as one of fact and law, I see nothing in the application before us for leave to appeal against the decision of his Honour Judge Samios that would induce me to grant such leave and permit the appeal to proceed.

In those circumstances, it is my view that the application for leave to appeal against the decision of Judge Samios that is made by Mr Carle in this matter should be dismissed; that the application that is made by Mr Neylon for leave to appeal against that decision in relation to the question of costs should also be dismissed; and that, in the case of both those dismissals, there should be no order as to costs.

THOMAS JA: I agree. The order in the District Court was interlocutory and it resulted in an order which will permit the dispute to be ventilated in due course on the merits if the parties are eventually minded to do so. In these circumstances I do not think it desirable to grant leave to appeal against the decision that has been made. I agree with the orders proposed.

MOYNIHAN J: I agree with the orders proposed and what has been said. I cannot resist adding as I said in the course of argument that if the matter is to litigated to judgment in the Magistrates Court there is a lot of work to be done on the pleadings before anything else.

McPHERSON JA: The orders of the Court are that the applications are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Kevin David Neylon v Raymond William Carle, the Queensland Court of Appeal considered an application for leave to appeal from a decision made by Judge Samios. The dispute originated in a lower court where Neylon, the respondent, had sued Carle, the appellant. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the appellant, Carle, had grounds to appeal the decision of Judge Samios and if the respondent, Neylon, had grounds to appeal the decision concerning costs. The Court of Appeal, comprising McPherson JA, Thomas JA, and Moynihan JA, deliberated on the matter and ultimately decided not to grant leave to appeal. McPherson JA, leading the opinion, highlighted that the Court had discussed the issues with the representatives of both parties but found no basis to permit the appeal. Thomas JA agreed with the proposed orders, emphasizing that the order in the District Court was interlocutory, allowing the dispute to proceed on the merits if the parties chose to do so. Moynihan JA concurred with the proposed orders and suggested that significant work on the pleadings would be required if the matter were to be taken to judgment in the Magistrates Court.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal centered on the advisability and necessity of permitting appeals from the interlocutory decision of Judge Samios. The appellant, Carle, sought leave to appeal against the decision, while the respondent, Neylon, sought leave to appeal specifically concerning the costs awarded. The Court of Appeal considered whether the appeals would serve any useful purpose or if the matter should be resolved on the merits in the lower court. McPherson JA opined that the application did not present compelling reasons to allow an appeal, and Thomas JA supported this view by noting that the order was interlocutory and would permit the dispute to proceed if the parties decided to do so. Moynihan JA added that if the matter were to go to judgment in the Magistrates Court, there would be considerable work needed on the pleadings.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the interlocutory nature of the decision meant that it was not appropriate to grant leave to appeal at that stage. McPherson JA emphasized that the Court had explored the issues thoroughly but found no justification for permitting the appeal. Thomas JA and Moynihan JA both agreed that the proposed orders were appropriate, with Moynihan JA also pointing out the extensive work that would be required on the pleadings if the matter proceeded to judgment in the Magistrates Court. Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed both applications for leave to appeal and made no order as to costs.

Kevin David Neylon v Raymond William Carle

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established