Misrachi v Public Guardian

The applicant, Misrachi, sought leave to appeal from interlocutory orders made by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Public Guardian was the respondent. The core of the dispute concerned Misrachi's attempt to vary existing interlocutory orders, effectively seeking a different outcome than that previously determined by the primary judge.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether leave to appeal should be granted. Specifically, it considered whether the grounds of appeal, which directly challenged the primary judge's findings of fact, demonstrated an error of principle or a miscarriage of discretion. The Court also had to assess whether there was a clear injustice to the applicant, particularly in light of the imminent statutory review and appeal from the guardianship orders themselves. The appropriateness of pseudonym orders in guardianship matters, and their interrelationship with the *Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010* (NSW) and s 65 of the *Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013* (NSW), were also relevant considerations.

Bell P and Emmett AJA refused leave to appeal. Their Honours reasoned that the applicant had not isolated any error of principle in the primary judge's decision, nor had they demonstrated that the exercise of discretion had miscarried. The Court found no clear injustice, especially given that a statutory review and appeal from the guardianship orders were already pending. The Court also noted the absence of any material change in circumstances that would warrant a variation of the interlocutory orders.

Consequently, leave to appeal was refused, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.