Sayed v National Australia Bank Limited

The applicant, Sayed, sought leave to appeal against a decision of the primary judge in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the rejection of certain evidence by the primary judge during proceedings between Sayed and National Australia Bank Limited. The appeal was brought before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the rejection of evidence by the primary judge constituted an interlocutory decision, and if so, whether leave to appeal was required. The Court was required to consider the nature of interlocutory decisions and their relationship to final judgments in the context of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.

The Court of Appeal held that the rejection of evidence by a judge during the course of proceedings is an interlocutory decision. It further held that interlocutory decisions merge in the final decision of the court. Consequently, leave to appeal is not required for an appeal against such a decision, as it can be raised as part of an appeal against the final judgment. However, the Court noted that the summons seeking leave to appeal had been dismissed.

The summons seeking leave to appeal was dismissed.