Seidler v Carroll and O'Dea

Seidler (the appellant) sought leave to appeal from interlocutory decisions of the primary judge made in proceedings against Carroll and O'Dea (the respondents). The dispute concerned the appellant's attempts to amend a statement of claim and the dismissal of the proceedings for want of dispatch. The appeal was heard by McColl and Macfarlan JJA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the appeal was competent, given that it sought to appeal interlocutory decisions, and whether any error of principle had been demonstrated by the appellant. Specifically, the court considered whether leave to appeal should be granted from the refusal of leave to amend the statement of claim and the dismissal of the proceedings for want of dispatch.

The Court of Appeal found that the appeal was incompetent. Their Honours reasoned that the decisions under appeal were interlocutory in nature, and the appellant had not demonstrated any error of principle that would warrant granting leave to appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the summons seeking leave to appeal and the appeal itself, along with the amended notice of motion, ordering the appellant to pay the respondents' costs in each instance.