O'Keefe & Anor. v Eccleston

Case [2007] NSWCA 294

New South Wales


Court of Appeal


CITATION: O'Keefe & Anor. v. Eccleston & Anor. [2007] NSWCA 294
HEARING DATE(S): 15 October 2007
JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 1; Ipp JA at 5; Handley AJA at 6
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 15 October 2007
DECISION: Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS: PRACTICE - Application for leave to appeal - Leave refused.
PARTIES: David Daniel O'Keefe & Kathryn Michelle O'Keefe - claimants
Peter Bryan Eccleston & Lucy Finette Taylor Eccleston - opponents
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40204/07
COUNSEL: Mr. J. Wilson SC with Ms. K. Burke - claimants
Mr. C. Harris SC with Mr. D. Williams - opponents
SOLICITORS: McIntosh McPhillamy & Co. for claimants
Rickards Whiteley for opponents
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court - Equity Division
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): SC 4922/06
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Windeyer J
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 6 March 2007
LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: [2007] NSWSC 159




                          CA 40204/07
                          SC 4922/06

                          HODGSON JA
                          IPP JA
                          HANDLEY AJA

                          Monday 15 October 2007
O’KEEFE & ANOR. V. ECCLESTON & ANOR.
Judgment

1 HODGSON JA: This is an application for leave to appeal from a decision of Windeyer J in which he answered four separate questions for determination. The application relates only to his answers to questions three and four of those four questions.

2 There is a separate matter raised in the application concerning what might be seen as a finding of fact in para [17] of his reasons. In relation to that matter, I would simply note that the parties are agreed that the matter in para [17] was not within the four questions submitted for determination, and what might seem to be a finding in para [17] is not a finding that is binding on the parties.

3 As regards the two questions in respect of which leave is sought, in my opinion the matters raised do not indicate any significant possibility that the primary judge was wrong in substance in the answers which he gave. I think the reasons for this view sufficiently appear from the debate that has occurred with Counsel, and for those reasons I would not grant leave to appeal.

4 IPP JA: I agree.

5 HANDLEY AJA: I agree.

6 HODGSON JA: So the order of the court is application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

      **********
Details
AGLC
O'Keefe & Anor. v Eccleston [2007] NSWCA 294
Case
[2007] NSWCA 294
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, O'Keefe and another, sought leave to appeal a decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The nature of the underlying dispute between the parties, O'Keefe and Eccleston, is not detailed in the provided text.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether to grant the applicants leave to appeal. This necessarily involved an assessment of the merits of the proposed appeal and whether it raised a question of law of sufficient importance to warrant further consideration.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Hodgson JA, Ipp JA, and Handley AJA, considered the application for leave to appeal. After deliberation, the Court determined that leave to appeal should not be granted.

Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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.