Marshall v Fleming (No 2)

Case [2015] NSWCA 69



Court of Appeal
Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name: 

Marshall v Fleming (No 2)

Medium Neutral Citation: 

[2015] NSWCA 69

Hearing Date(s): 

On the papers

Date of Orders:

20 March 2014

Decision Date: 

26 March 2015

Before: 

Bathurst CJ at [1]; 
Beazley P at [9];
Meagher JA at [10]

Decision: 

Order that the respondents pay the appellants’ costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal.
The respondents to have a certificate under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW), if eligible.

Catchwords: 

COSTS – where leave refused on grounds relied on by appellants in court below in circumstances where it was unnecessary to deal with other grounds – where matters not squarely raised before primary judge

Cases Cited: 

Marshall v Fleming [2013] NSWSC 566
Marshall v Fleming [2014] NSWCA 64

Category: 

Costs

Parties: 

Margaret Lesley Marshall (First Appellant)
Kim Neil Marshall (Second Appellant)
Francis G Fleming (First Respondent)
Marc S Moller (Second Respondent)
Steven R Pounian (Third Respondent)
James P Kreindler (Fourth Respondent)
David C Cook (Fifth Respondent)
David Beekman (Sixth Respondent)
Bianca I Rodriguez (Seventh Respondent)
Noah H Kushlefsky (Eighth Respondent)
Robert J Spragg (Ninth Respondent)
Brian J Alexander (Tenth Respondent)
Justin T Green (Eleventh Respondent)

Representation: 

Counsel:
C J Bevan / E W Young (Appellants)
D F Villa (Respondents)
Solicitors:
Turner Freeman Lawyers (Appellants)
Kennedys (Respondents)

File Number(s): 

2013/166332

Publication Restriction: 

Nil

Decision under appeal: 

 Court or Tribunal: 

Supreme Court of New South Wales

  Jurisdiction: 

Common Law Division

  Citation: 

[2013] NSWSC 566

  Date of Decision: 

17 May 2013

  Before: 

Harrison J

  File Number(s): 

2009/292939

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

JUDGMENT

  1. BATHURST CJ: In a judgment dated 20 March 2014, Marshall v Fleming,[1] this Court granted leave to appeal and allowed an appeal from an order of Harrison J “pursuant to UCPR 20.14 and/or the Memorandum of Understanding between the Chief Justice of New South Wales and the Chief Judge of the State of New York on References of Questions of Law of 28 October 2010 that a member of the New York Panel of Referees be appointed to act as a referee for inquiry and report on questions of foreign law.”[2] In addition, certain ancillary orders made by the primary judge were set aside.

    [1] [2014] NSWCA 64 (“appeal judgment”).

  2. In its judgment, the Court stated that its present view was that the respondents should pay the applicants’ costs of the appeal but that the costs of the proceedings in the Court below should be determined by the primary judge or such other judge of the Common Law Division who hears the…

Continue reading Marshall v Fleming (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Marshall v Fleming (No 2) [2015] NSWCA 69
Case
[2015] NSWCA 69
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Marshall v Fleming (No 2)*, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales considered an application for leave to appeal and the appeal itself, following a decision by the primary judge. The dispute concerned costs.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether leave to appeal should be granted on grounds that had been relied upon by the appellants in the court below, and whether it was necessary to deal with other grounds of appeal that had not been squarely raised before the primary judge.

The Court of Appeal determined that leave to appeal should be refused on the grounds that had been relied upon in the court below, as it was unnecessary to deal with the other grounds. The Court ordered that the respondents pay the appellants’ costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal. The respondents were also to have a certificate under the *Suitors’ Fund Act 1951* (NSW), provided they were eligible.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order that the respondents pay the appellants’ costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal.

The respondents to have a certificate under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW), if eligible.

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.