Sarina v Mackay

The appeal concerned a dispute between Mr Sarina and Mr Mackay, which had previously been heard in the Local Court. The Local Court had entered judgment in favour of Mr Mackay and dismissed Mr Sarina's cross-claim. Mr Sarina then appealed to the Supreme Court, constituted by an Associate Judge, who dismissed this appeal. Mr Sarina sought leave to bring a further appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether Mr Sarina had an appeal as of right to the Court of Appeal, or whether leave to appeal was required. This question turned on the nature of the appeal that had been dismissed by the Associate Judge, specifically whether it involved a mixed question of fact and law.

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal to the Associate Judge involved a mixed question of fact and law, and therefore, an appeal from the Associate Judge's decision to the Court of Appeal required leave. The Court found no error in the Associate Judge's refusal of leave to appeal. Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Sarina's notice of appeal and his summons seeking leave to appeal, ordering him to pay Mr Mackay's costs.