Taouk v Ho

The appeal concerned a building and construction dispute between Taouk (applicant) and Ho (respondent). The applicant sought leave to appeal from a decision of the primary judge in the Supreme Court, which had affirmed a Local Court decision. The primary judge had found that the respondent was not bound by releases and bars to action contained within a settlement deed. This deed had been delivered to the applicant's solicitors, but the applicant had disclaimed it without executing it.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether leave to appeal should be granted. This required the Court to consider whether there was an arguable case of injustice to the applicant in refusing leave to appeal, given the primary judge's findings regarding the settlement deed and the applicant's failure to execute it.

Gleeson JA and Emmett AJA dismissed the summons seeking leave to appeal. Their Honours reasoned that the applicant had not established an arguable case of injustice. The applicant's own conduct in disclaiming the deed without execution meant that they were not bound by its terms, including the releases and bars to action. Consequently, the primary judge's finding that the respondent was not bound by these provisions was upheld.

The summons seeking leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.