Mao v AMP Superannuation Ltd

The applicant, Ms Mao, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of Ward CJ in Eq delivered on 26 July 2017. Ms Mao had been found incapable of managing her own affairs, and a manager had been appointed to manage her rights and interests concerning the proceedings. The primary dispute concerned the competence of Ms Mao's application for leave to appeal, given her incapacity and the absence of the appointed manager or a tutor bringing the application on her behalf. The appeal was heard by Basten and Leeming JJA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine two principal legal issues. Firstly, whether the application for leave to appeal was incompetent because it was not brought by the appointed manager or a tutor, and if so, whether the requirement to bring proceedings by a tutor should be waived. Secondly, the Court considered whether the order of Ward CJ in Eq of 26 July 2017 was interlocutory or final, and consequently, whether leave to appeal was required.

The Court reasoned that the rules of court generally require proceedings on behalf of a person under a legal incapacity to be brought by a tutor or, in this instance, by the appointed manager. As the application was not brought in this manner, it was deemed incompetent. The Court found no basis to waive this requirement. Furthermore, the Court determined that the order of 26 July 2017 was interlocutory, meaning that leave to appeal was indeed necessary.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal refused the applicant's applications for an adjournment and a stay of proceedings. The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of Ward CJ in Eq of 26 July 2017 was dismissed as incompetent.