Skip to content

Leave to appeal June 1, 2019

[28] In PPK Willoughby Pty Ltd v Baird [2019] NSWCA 48, this Court made reference to the proper approach of an intermediate appellate court to applications for leave to appeal from interlocutory decisions involving the exercise of discretion on questions of practice and procedure. The Court observed (at [5]) that discretionary decisions “engage the strictures against over-ready appellate interference and the correlative need for ‘added restraint’ associated with House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 with the consequence that a ‘heavy burden’ lies on an applicant seeking leave to appeal from a discretionary judgment on a question of practice or procedure” (citations omitted).

[29] The Court in that case also noted (at [6]) the well-established grounds which generally must be satisfied before leave to appeal to this Court is granted, namely that:

“Leave applications in this Court attract a general obligation on the applicant for leave to establish that there is an issue of principle, a question of public importance or a reasonably clear injustice going beyond something that is merely arguable: JaycarPty Ltd v Lombardo [2011] NSWCA 284 at [46]; BEFinancial PtyLtd v Das [2012] NSWCA 164 at [32]-[38]; AgeCoLtd v Liu (2013) 82 NSWLR 268; [2013] NSWCA 26 at [13]; Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services v Smith (2017) 95 NSWLR 597; [2017] NSWCA 206 at [28].”

Khanna v Bond Realty Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 128

Related Articles:

“Class actions” – some ground rules

Reopening decisions of the NSW Court of Appeal

Issue estoppel, res judicata and abuse of process with a twist of s. 151Z of the Workers Compensation Act, 1987

Real estate agents: mere conduits?




Social Media

Subscribe to the weekly newsletter

Please enter your name.
Please enter a valid email address.
Something went wrong. Please check your entries and try again.
Social Media Auto Publish Powered By :
Scroll To Top