McEvoy v Wagglens Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 20 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: McEvoy v Wagglens Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 104
Hearing dates: 21 May 2021
Date of orders: 24 May 2021
Decision date: 24 May 2021
Before: Bell P; Payne JA
Decision:

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs

Catchwords:

APPEAL – application for leave to appeal – no issue of principle or question of public importance identified – where amount in issue substantially less than statutory threshold pursuant to s 101(2)(r) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 60

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 550

Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) s 16

Local Court Act 2007 (NSW) s 40

Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 101(2)(r)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 14.28, 36.15, 36.16(2)(b), 51.10(2)

Cases Cited:

Be Financial Pty Ltd as trustee for Be Financial Operations Trust v Das [2012] NSWCA 164

Berry v Nicholls [2016] NSWCA 272

Carolan v AMF Bowling Pty Ltd (t/as Bennetts Green Bowl) [1995] NSWCA 69

Cooper v Atkin [2021] NSWCA 82

Gaynor v Attorney General of New South Wales (2020) 102 NSWLR 123; [2020] NSWCA 48

Gibson v Drumm [2016] NSWCA 206

Giles v La Rosa (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 297

Girgis v Oueik [2018] NSWCA 314

Jaycar Pty Limited v Lombardo [2011] NSWCA 284

Lukaszewicz v Polish Club Ltd [2020] NSWCA 99

McEvoy v Wagglens Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 330

Nguyen v Tran [2018] NSWCA 215

Nichols v NFS Agribusiness Pty Ltd (2018) 97 NSWLR 681; [2018] NSWCA 84

NRMA Insurance for the Nominal Defendant v Al-Bayati [2018] NSWCA 258

PPK Willoughby Pty Ltd v Baird [2019] NSWCA 48

Price v Price [2020] NSWCA 312

Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services v Smith (2017) 95 NSWLR 597; [2017] NSWCA 206

The Age Company Ltd v Liu (2013) 82 NSWLR 268; [2013] NSWCA 26

Yuen v Chan [2019] NSWCA 63

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Fentin McEvoy (Applicant)
Wagglens Pty Ltd (First Respondent)
Roderick Cloonan Marr (Second Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
In person (Applicant)
Ms K MacDonald (Solicitor) (Respondents)

Solicitors:
KMD Law & Advisory (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2020/173957
Publication restriction: N/A
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Common Law
Citation:

[2020] NSWSC 575

Date of Decision:
15 May 2020
Before:
Ierace J
File Number(s):
2019/45874

Judgment

  1. THE COURT: Before this Court is an application for leave to appeal brought by Mr Fentin McEvoy (Mr McEvoy) from a decision of Ierace J: see McEvoy v Wagglens Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 575. The primary judge refused Mr McEvoy leave to appeal from a decision of the Local Court of New South Wales before Reiss LCM on 4 December 2018.

  2. The decision of the Magistrate was one dismissing a notice of motion to vary or set aside a judgment given in favour of Wagglens Pty Ltd (Wagglens) and its director Mr Roderick Marr (Mr Marr) on 23…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read McEvoy v Wagglens Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2021] NSWCA 104
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, McEvoy, sought leave to appeal against a decision of the primary judge in a dispute with Wagglens Pty Ltd. The application was heard by Bell P and Payne JA of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether leave to appeal should be granted, given that the amount in dispute was substantially less than the statutory threshold stipulated in section 101(2)(r) of the *Supreme Court Act 1970* (NSW). This provision generally requires an issue of principle or a question of public importance for leave to appeal to be granted in such circumstances.

The Court of Appeal found that the applicant had failed to identify any issue of principle or question of public importance that would justify granting leave to appeal. In the absence of such a demonstration, and given the amount in dispute fell below the statutory threshold, the Court concluded that the criteria for granting leave to appeal were not met.

Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of Wagglens Pty Ltd.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal dismissed 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.