Liristis v White - [2025] NSWCA 205

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Liristis v White [2025] NSWCA 205
Hearing dates: 22 August 2025
Date of orders: 5 September 2025
Decision date: 05 September 2025
Before: McHugh JA, Ball JA
Decision:
Leave to appeal refused with costs.

Catchwords:
APPEALS – application for leave to appeal – no issue of principle, question of public importance or reasonably clear injustice identified – leave refused

Legislation Cited:
District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 127
Supreme Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 101(2)(e)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 42.19(2)

Cases Cited:
Arsalan v Rixon (2021) 274 CLR 606; [2021] HCA 40
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (1964) 112 CLR 125; [1964] HCA 69
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Liristis & Anor v White [2024] NSWDC 557
Liristis v White [2024] NSWSC 1654
McEvoy v Wagglens Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 104
PPK Willoughby Pty Ltd v Baird [2019] NSWCA 48

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Tony Liristis (First Applicant)
Infinity Group of Companies t/as Austral Agistment and Animal Shelter (Second Applicant)
Brian Leslie White (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Self-Represented (Applicant)
J Sukkar (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Self-Represented (Applicant)
Hall & Wilcox (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2025/72892
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW;
Supreme Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Civil;
Equity

Citation:

Not available – ex tempore 24 October 2024
Liristis & Anor v White [2024] NSWDC 557
Liristis v White [2024] NSWSC 1654

Date of Decision:

24 October 2024;
28 November 2024; and
16 December 2024

Before:

Newlinds SC DCJ;
Abadee DCJ;
Meek J

File Number(s):

2024/400930;
2024/286433

JUDGMENT

THE COURT: The first applicant (incorrectly described in the amended summons seeking leave to appeal as the “First Appellant”), Mr Antonio Liristis, and the second applicant, Infinity Group of Companies Pty Ltd t/a Austral Agistment and Animal Shelter (IGC), a company apparently controlled by Mr Liristis, seek leave to appeal against the following orders:

Orders made by Newlinds SC DCJ on 24 October 2024 in proceeding 2024/00286433 for summary dismissal of that proceeding and for Mr Liristis to pay costs fixed as a gross sum of $15,000 (DC1);

Orders made on 26 November 2024 by Abadee DCJ in proceeding 2024/00400930 that Mr Liristis have leave to discontinue that proceeding on the basis that he paid the defendant’s costs as assessed (or agreed): see Liristis & Anor v White [2024] NSWDC 557 (DC2);

Orders made on 20 November 2024 by Meek J dismissing a summons filed by Mr Liristis in the Supreme Court on 16 December 2024 and ordering that Mr Liristis pay the defendant’s costs: see Liristis v White [2024] NSWSC 1654 (SC1).

The orders sought by the applicants include the following:

“1   The Local Court Proceedings file 2024/00286433 be transferred to the Parramatta District Court.
2   Orders made by Newlinds J, on 24 October 2024, be dismissed.
3   Orders made by Abadee J, on 28…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Liristis v White

Details

AGLC: Liristis v White [2025] NSWCA 205
Case: [2025] NSWCA 205
Decision Date: 05 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Liristis (appellant) sought leave to appeal against a decision of the District Court of New South Wales. The precise nature of the dispute between Liristis and White (respondent) was not detailed in the provided text, but the application for leave to appeal was heard by McHugh and Ball JJA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the appellant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant the granting of leave to appeal. Specifically, the court was required to determine if the appeal raised an issue of principle, a question of public importance, or a reasonably clear injustice that would justify appellate intervention.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the appellant had failed to identify any such grounds. Their Honours found no issue of principle, no question of public importance, and no reasonably clear injustice that would warrant granting leave to appeal. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Leave to appeal was refused with costs awarded to the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal refused with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Liristis v White [2025] NSWCA 205
Hearing dates:	22 August 2025
Date of orders:	5 September 2025
Decision date:	05 September 2025
Before:	McHugh JA, Ball JA
Decision:	Leave to appeal refused with costs.
Catchwords:	APPEALS – application for leave to appeal – no issue of principle, question of public importance or reasonably clear injustice identified – leave refused
Legislation Cited:	District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 127 Supreme Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 101(2)(e) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 42.19(2)
Cases Cited:	Arsalan v Rixon (2021) 274 CLR 606; [2021] HCA 40 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (1964) 112 CLR 125; [1964] HCA 69 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Liristis & Anor v White [2024] NSWDC 557 Liristis v White [2024] NSWSC 1654 McEvoy v Wagglens Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 104 PPK Willoughby Pty Ltd v Baird [2019] NSWCA 48
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Tony Liristis (First Applicant) Infinity Group of Companies t/as Austral Agistment and Animal Shelter (Second Applicant) Brian Leslie White (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: Self-Represented (Applicant) J Sukkar (Respondent) Solicitors: Self-Represented (Applicant) Hall & Wilcox (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2025/72892
Publication restriction:	Nil
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: District Court of NSW; Supreme Court of NSW Jurisdiction: Civil; Equity Citation: Not available – ex tempore 24 October 2024 Liristis & Anor v White [2024] NSWDC 557 Liristis v White [2024] NSWSC 1654 Date of Decision: 24 October 2024; 28 November 2024; and 16 December 2024 Before: Newlinds SC DCJ; Abadee DCJ; Meek J File Number(s): 2024/400930; 2024/286433