|
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]; |
Decision: | Order that the respondents pay the appellants’ costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal. |
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 |
Category: | Costs |
Parties: | Margaret Lesley Marshall (First Appellant) |
Representation: | Counsel: |
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: | |
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
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] Marshall v Fleming [2013] NSWSC 566 at [25].
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
- AGLC
- Marshall v Fleming (No 2) [2015] NSWCA 69
- Case
- [2015] NSWCA 69
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.