Romeo v Papalia

In *Romeo v Papalia*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an appeal concerning the authority of a solicitor to execute terms of settlement on behalf of a husband, where the wife had provided instructions to the solicitor on behalf of both herself and her husband. The dispute arose from moneys borrowed by the husband and wife, who were both sued by lenders. The primary judgment had found that the solicitor was indeed authorised to act for the husband.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judgment was given after a "trial or hearing on the merits" for the purposes of section 75A(8) of the *Supreme Court Act 1970* (NSW), and whether an interlocutory judgment was necessarily given without such a hearing. Further, the Court had to consider whether special grounds were shown to receive further evidence on appeal, and if the discretion to receive further evidence under section 75A(7) of the *Supreme Court Act 1970* should be exercised in favour of the appellant.

The Court reasoned that the primary judgment was given after a hearing on the merits, as it involved the determination of the solicitor's authority to settle the proceedings on behalf of the husband. The Court found no basis to conclude that an interlocutory judgment is inherently not a judgment given after a hearing on the merits. Consequently, the Court held that the conditions for adducing further evidence under section 75A(8) were not met, and there were no special grounds to exercise the discretion under section 75A(7).

The appeal was dismissed with costs.