Kuzminski v Accent Blinds Australia Pty Ltd

The plaintiff, Kuzminski, sought leave to appeal from a decision of the primary judge that struck out his claim against the first respondent, Accent Blinds Australia Pty Ltd, and the second respondent. The primary judge's reasons indicated an intention to permit the plaintiff to re-plead his case, however, this leave was not formally included in the orders made.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to appeal the primary judge's decision. Ancillary to this was the question of the proper procedural avenue for the plaintiff to obtain the intended leave to re-plead, given the discrepancy between the reasons for judgment and the formal orders.

The Court of Appeal held that the proper course for the plaintiff was to approach the primary judge to seek an order granting leave to re-plead, reflecting the judge's stated intention. The Court noted that the defendant had a duty to cooperate in ensuring the formal orders accurately reflected the judge's reasons. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that it was not the appropriate mechanism to rectify the oversight in the primary judge's orders.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs in relation to the first respondent, and dismissed with no order as to costs in relation to the second respondent.