Selig v Wealthsure Pty Ltd

The case of Selig v Wealthsure Pty Ltd involved the applicants seeking leave to appeal from interlocutory orders made by the Court on 25 June 2013. The primary judge had addressed the principles governing the arguability of the respondents' grounds of appeal, concluding that certain grounds were arguable. The applicants argued that the primary judge erred in his application of these principles and in not reaching a more definitive conclusion about the arguability of the respondents' grounds of appeal. The primary judge considered these arguments and found no error in the assessment of the arguability of the respondents' grounds of appeal.

The legal issues in this case centred on whether the primary judge correctly assessed the arguability of the respondents' grounds of appeal and whether there was sufficient doubt about the interlocutory judgment to warrant reconsideration by the Full Court. Additionally, the court had to consider whether a substantial injustice would result if leave to appeal were refused. The applicants argued that the primary judge should have reached a more definitive conclusion about the prospects of the respondents succeeding on their appeal and that there was a substantial injustice in not allowing an appeal.

In assessing the application, the court found that the primary judge correctly applied the principles governing the arguability of the respondents' grounds of appeal. The primary judge's assessment that certain grounds were arguable was not erroneous, and there was no requirement for him to reach a more definitive conclusion about the prospects of the respondents succeeding on their appeal. The court also found that there was no sufficient doubt about the interlocutory judgment to warrant reconsideration by the Full Court and that there would not be a substantial injustice if leave to appeal were refused. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

The orders made by the court were that the application for leave to appeal from the interlocutory orders made by the Court on 25 June 2013 was refused, and the costs of the application were to be the costs of the respondent on the appeal in matter SAD 97 of 2013. The entry of these orders was in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.