Van Gorp v Davy

The applicant, Mr. Van Gorp, sought leave to appeal against consent orders made by the primary court in proceedings between Mr. Davy and others. Mr. Van Gorp was not a party to those original proceedings. The central dispute concerned whether Mr. Van Gorp, as a non-party to the original proceedings, possessed the necessary standing to appeal the consent orders made by the primary court. The matter was heard by Meagher JA and Basten AJA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether a person who was not a party to the original proceedings, but who claimed a right to bring their own proceedings concerning the subject matter of those orders, had sufficient standing to seek leave to appeal those orders. The court was required to determine the criteria for standing to appeal in such circumstances.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the right to bring one's own proceedings, while significant, did not automatically confer a right to appeal orders made in separate proceedings to which the applicant was not a party. The court applied the principle that standing to appeal is generally limited to parties to the original proceedings, or in exceptional circumstances, to those with a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the litigation, which was not demonstrated here. The court found that the applicant's assertion of a right to bring his own proceedings was not a sufficient basis to attract a right of appeal against orders made in a different proceeding.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the summons seeking leave to appeal and the notice of motion filed on 20 June 2022. The applicant was also ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the proceedings.