Priestley v National Australia Bank

The applicants sought leave to appeal against a judgment of Garling J delivered on 10 December 2012, which had refused an application for a stay order. The dispute concerned an action that had already commenced and proceeded prior to the filing of the application for leave to appeal.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether it was open to grant the relief sought, specifically a stay of proceedings, given that the action sought to be stayed had already occurred before the application for leave to appeal was filed. This raised the question of the futility of the application for leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the application for leave to appeal was futile because the event that the applicants sought to stay had already taken place. Consequently, the court could not grant the relief sought. The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 were noted in relation to the entry of judgments and orders, and the time limits for setting aside or varying them, but these provisions did not alter the futility of the present application.

The application for leave to appeal was refused, and the applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal.