SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | McKay v Paule |
Citation: | [2022] ACTCA 72 |
Hearing Date: | 7 December 2022 |
DecisionDate: | 22 December 2022 |
Before: | Mossop J |
Decision: | 1. The application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment dated 7 October 2022 and filed 12 October 2022 is dismissed. 2. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the application |
Catchwords: | APPEAL – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL – Application for leave to appeal interlocutory decision – decision of primary judge to extend limitation period in defamation matter – where grant of leave would delay and fragment case – decision below not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant grant of leave – where applicant contributed to delay in bringing proceedings – application dismissed APPEAL – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL – Application for leave to appeal out of time – failure to pay heed to timeframes – where appeal lacks merit – lengthy delay in filing – leave refused |
Legislation Cited: | Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 5312 Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), s 21 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 37E(4) |
Cases Cited: | Barrett v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 304; 96 NSWLR 478 Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541 |
Parties: | David McKay ( Applicant) Spiro Paule ( Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel D Robens ( Applicant) M Friedgut ( Respondent) |
| Solicitors Just Dispute Resolution ( Applicant) Harmers Workplace Lawyers ( Respondent) | |
File Number: | ACTCA 59 of 2022 |
Decision under appeal: | Court/Tribunal: ACT Supreme Court Before: McWilliam AsJ Date of Decision: 27 July 2022 Case Title: Paule v McKay (No 2) Citation: [2022] ACTSC 190 |
MOSSOP J:
Introduction
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the Associate Judge (the primary judge). Leave is required because the decision was an interlocutory one: Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 37E(4). An extension of time is also sought because the application for leave was filed outside the time permitted under the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT).
The background to the application for leave to appeal is quite extensive. Mr Spiro Paule sought an extension of the limitation period in which to bring defamation proceedings against Mr David McKay. Mr Paule is the managing director and chief executive officer of Findex Group Limited (Findex). Mr McKay is a former employee of…
Continue reading McKay v Paule
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- McKay v Paule [2022] ACTCA 72
- Case
- [2022] ACTCA 72
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before Mossop J was whether the primary judge's decision to extend the limitation period was attended with sufficient doubt to warrant the grant of leave to appeal. The applicant argued that granting leave would cause delay and fragmentation of the overall defamation proceedings.
Mossop J reasoned that the applicant had contributed to the delay in bringing the proceedings, and that the primary judge's decision was not sufficiently doubtful to justify granting leave to appeal. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment dated 7 October 2022 and filed 12 October 2022 is dismissed.
2. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the application
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.