Sayed v National Australia Bank Limited

[2013] NSWCA 139

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Sayed v National Australia Bank Limited [2013] NSWCA 139

Hearing dates:

20 February 2013

Decision date:

20 February 2013

Before:

Beazley JA; Barrett JA

Decision:

The summons seeking leave to appeal is dismissed.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords:

APPEAL - civil - leave to appeal - whether the rejection of evidence is an interlocutory decision - interlocutory decisions merge in final decision - leave to appeal not required

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Bilal Sayed (First Applicant)
Nicole Sayed (Second Applicant)
National Australia Bank Limited (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
In person (Applicants)
G Lucarelli (Respondent)
Solicitors:
In person (Applicants)
Dibbs Barker (Respondent)

File Number(s):

CA 2012/329980

 Decision under appeal 

Jurisdiction:

9111

Citation:

National Australia Bank Limited v Bilal Sayed

Date of Decision:

2012-10-22 00:00:00

Before:

Rein J

File Number(s):

2010/135614

Judgment

1. THE COURT: This is a summons for leave to appeal from a decision of Rein J given on 22 October 2012, in which his Honour was dealing with a notice of motion concerning whether or not a settlement had been reached between the parties.

1. The Court is of the opinion that his Honour's judgment in that matter was a final determination of the dispute between the parties. As we understand it, that is not disputed by the respondent, who has confirmed in Court just now that that is so. However, the material that is before the Court indicates that the issue between the parties involves more than $100,000, so that leave of the Court is not required for that reason. Accordingly, in the normal course of events, leave is not required from the judgment of Rein J.

1. The respondent says, however, that what is challenged in his Honour's decision is essentially the rejection of two pieces of evidence. For that reason, the respondent submitted that the decision was a discretionary matter on a matter of practice and procedure, for which leave is required. By that, the Court understood the respondent to mean it was an interlocutory determination. It is our view that an interlocutory decision in the course of the hearing of that nature, that is, dealing with evidence, is one that is merged in the final decision, so that leave is not required. For that reason, the Court proposes that the summons seeking leave to appeal is dismissed.

1. Should Mr Sayed wish to file an appeal as of right and/or take any other action arising out of the circumstances in which he has found himself in relation to the signing of the document called the principal agreement, he may do so, but he will have to take advice on that matter, or make his own determination. But the Court is of the opinion this is a final decision and leave is not required.

1. The summons seeking leave to appeal is dismissed.

**********

Decision last updated: 28 May 2013