NSW Caselaw
SMITH v CORPORATE AFFAIRS COMMISSION
SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL
KIRBY ACJ, SAMUELS and MAHONEY JJA 6 July 1988, 6 July 1988
[1988] NSWCA 136
COMPANY LAW — Companies (NSW) Code s96, s 572(1) — prosecution officer — officer's knowing concern — decision of McInerney J — whether appeal to Court of Appeal timely — held: appeal not timely — leave to appeal refused — appeal (if any) should proceed after magistrate has found relevant facts. Companies (New South Wales) Code, s96, s572 ORDER Summons for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Kirby ACJ The Court does not consider that this is an appropriate or proper matter in which to grant leave to appeal. It has formed no view about the correctness of McInerney J's reasons for judgment. The matters raised in that judgment may come up for timely consideration either before us, or elsewhere, on a future occasion. They will then be determined on the basis of findings of fact which are made by the magistrate when the matter is returned to him.
The claimant must necessarily pay the costs of the summons for leave to appeal which is dismissed.
COUNSEL:
Claimant: MR K HANDLEY QC / D CAMPBELL Opponent: MR M F GRAY QC
SOLICITORS:
Claimant: W G McNALLY AND CO
Opponent: SOLICITOR FOR PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate