LPH Developments Pty Ltd v Jameson Moore Pty Ltd

In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, LPH Developments Pty Ltd has appealed against interlocutory orders made by a master in a proceeding against Jameson Moore Pty Ltd. The primary issue in dispute was the master's decision to require further security for costs, a procedural matter rather than a substantive one. The court was required to determine whether the master's decision was erroneous and, if so, whether it warranted the grant of leave to appeal under s 60(1)(f) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA). This provision allows for an appeal from an interlocutory decision, but generally requires that the decision below be plainly wrong or attended by sufficient doubt to justify the grant of leave.

The court considered that the master's orders were clearly interlocutory, and therefore, leave to appeal was not automatically granted. The court noted that leave should not be granted unless the decision below was plainly wrong or was attended by sufficient doubt to justify the grant of leave and a substantial injustice would be done if it remained undisturbed. The court held that the requirement for leave to appeal against an interlocutory decision was a substantive restriction that advanced the administration of justice by preventing procedural disputes from distracting the court and the parties from the determination of contested substantive rights. The court emphasised that special restraint must be exercised when the interlocutory order under appeal was one concerning practice and procedure.

After considering the circumstances of the case, the court found that the master's decision was not plainly wrong or attended by sufficient doubt to warrant or justify the grant of leave to appeal. The court held that the grounds of appeal did not disclose any proper basis for interfering with the exercise of the master's discretion in a matter concerning practice and procedure. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal against the interlocutory orders made by the master was refused. The decision was certified as the reasons for the court's decision.