SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | Shearman v Classic Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd | |
Citation: | [2025] ACTCA 33 | |
Hearing Date: | 24 June 2025 | |
Decision Date: | 11 August 2025 | |
Before: | Muller AJ | |
Decision: | See [70] | |
Catchwords: | APPEAL – APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT – Civil law – application for leave to appeal – appeal from three separate interlocutory decisions – appeal to set aside judgments – leave refused | |
Legislation Cited: | Building Act 2004 (ACT) s 19A Court Procedures Act 2004 (ACT) Court Procedures Rules2006 (ACT) rr 5312, 6604 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 37E | |
Cases Cited: | Asset Building Certifiers Pty Ltd v Hyblewski [2020] ACTCA 21 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill [2006] HCA 46; 227 CLR 57 Brisciani v Piscioneri (No 2) [2016] ACTCA 24 Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia [1986] HCA 58; 161 CLR 148 Construction Occupations Register v Bates [2017] ACTCA 15 Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc [1991] FCA 844; 33 FCR 397 Donohue v Volanne Pty Ltd (No 2) ACTSC [2021] ACTCA 11 Findex Group Pty Limited v McKay [2023] ACTCA 36 House v The King [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499 Hyblewski v Bellerive Homes Pty Ltd [2019] ACTSC 44 Kelly v Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT) [2015] ACTCA 55 Kenny v Ritter [2009] SASC 139 Manny v Commonwealth of Australia; Manny v University of Canberra [2023] ACTSC 160 Mulley v Manifold [1959] HCA 23; 103 CLR 341 Piscioneri v Brisciani & Reardon [2017] ACTSC 237 R v Meyboom (2012) [2012] ACTCA 2; 256 FLR 450 Sun v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 81 FCR 71 | |
Parties: | Debra Shearman ( First Appellant) Leigh Shearman (Second Appellant) Classic Constructions Pty Ltd ( Respondent) CBS Residential (Interested Party) | |
Representation: | Counsel Self-represented ( Appellant) WDB Buckland ( Respondent) S Onitiri (Interested Party) | |
| Solicitors Self-represented ( Appellant) MV Law ( Respondent) Lander & Rogers (Interested Party) | ||
File Number: | ACTCA 39 of 2024 | |
Decisions Under Appeal: | Court/Tribunal: | Supreme Court of the ACT |
Before: | McCallum CJ | |
Date of Decision: | 14 June 2024 | |
Case Title: | Classic Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shearman (No 2) | |
Citation: | ||
Court File Number(s): | SC 417 of 2022 | |
| Court/Tribunal: | Supreme Court of the ACT | |
| Before: | McCallum CJ | |
| Date of Decision: | 12 September 2024 | |
| Case Title: | Classic Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shearman (No 3) | |
| Citation: | ||
| Court File Number(s): | SC 417 of 2022 | |
| Court/Tribunal: | Supreme Court of the ACT | |
| Before: | McCallum CJ | |
| Date of Decision: | 20 September 2024 | |
| Case Title: | Classic Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shearman (No 4) | |
| Citation: | ||
| Court File Number(s): | SC 417 of 2022 | |
MULLER AJ:
Introduction
1․This is an application to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal from a series of interlocutory decisions made by a single Judge (the primary judge).
2․The appellants in these proceedings are the defendants in the substantive proceedings,…
Continue reading Shearman v Classic Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Shearman v Classic Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd [2025] ACTCA 33
- Case
- [2025] ACTCA 33
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant the granting of leave to appeal from the interlocutory decisions. This required the Court to consider the merits of the proposed appeals and whether there was a real prospect of success or any other compelling reason for the appeals to be heard.
Muller AJ refused leave to appeal. The Court found that the applicant had failed to establish any error in the interlocutory decisions of the Supreme Court, nor had they demonstrated any compelling reason why the appeals should be permitted to proceed. The applicant's arguments did not meet the threshold required for granting leave to appeal in such circumstances.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [70]
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.