Sebie v Pham (No 3)

This matter concerned an application for leave to appeal by the first applicant against orders made by the primary judge concerning the payment out of funds held in court. The first applicant sought to appeal against orders that permitted the second respondent to be paid from those funds, and also sought to appeal against various other decisions made by the primary judge dating back to 2017. The first applicant's claim to the funds was contested by the respondents, who argued that the first applicant had not demonstrated an arguable case for the funds.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether to grant leave to appeal against the orders for payment out of court. This involved considering whether the first applicant had an arguable case for the funds, particularly in light of a previous decision by the Court to refuse to re-join the first applicant as an applicant in proceedings concerning the funds. The Court also had to consider the significant obstacles and uncertainty surrounding the first applicant's claim, as well as concerns about a potential undisclosed interest of the first applicant. Furthermore, the Court was required to determine whether to grant leave to appeal against earlier decisions, assessing whether the application was made within a reasonable time and if any errors had been demonstrated.

The Court refused leave to appeal. Regarding the payment out orders, the Court noted that granting leave would undermine its unanimous decision to refuse re-joinder of the first applicant. The Court found that there were significant obstacles and uncertainty attending to the first applicant's claim, and expressed concern about a potential undisclosed interest of the first applicant. The Court also observed that the first and second respondents were entitled to final resolution of the matter, and that the orders appealed from were discretionary. In relation to the earlier decisions, the Court found the application to be well out of time, with no explanation for the delay, and that the issues were known to the applicant and ought to have been raised much earlier. The Court also noted that the rights of third parties had intervened and that no errors had been demonstrated.

Consequently, the summons seeking leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.