Mohareb v Kelso (No 3)

Mohareb (the applicant) sought leave to appeal against an interlocutory decision of the primary judge that refused to grant an adjournment of proceedings. Kelso (the respondent) was the other party to the proceedings. The appeal concerned the refusal of an adjournment, and the court was asked to consider whether leave to appeal should be granted.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge erred in refusing to grant an adjournment of the proceedings. This involved determining whether there was a sufficient basis to grant leave to appeal against an interlocutory decision, particularly where the applicant contended that the refusal of the adjournment would cause prejudice.

Beazley P and Macfarlan JA dismissed the summons for leave to appeal. Their Honours noted that leave to appeal against an interlocutory decision is generally only granted where there is an issue of principle or where the decision is attended by a real risk of injustice. In this instance, the court found that no such issue of principle arose and that the refusal of the adjournment did not present a compelling case for leave to appeal. The motion for a stay of proceedings was also dismissed. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.