Sassoon v Rose

The applicant, Sassoon, sought leave to appeal from two decisions made by the primary court. The respondent was Rose. The dispute concerned the exercise of discretion or discretionary judgment in each of those decisions.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary court's decisions were attended by error of the kind described in *House v The King* (1936) 55 CLR 499. This involved assessing whether the discretion had been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or upon wrong principles, or if it had failed to take into account relevant considerations or taken into account irrelevant ones.

Meagher and Gleeson JJA found that neither of the decisions under appeal arguably exhibited the type of error required to grant leave. Consequently, the Court concluded that the threshold for interfering with the exercise of discretion had not been met.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application.