PILLON v RIVERINA NEWSPAPERS (GRIFFITH) PTY LTD SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL SAMUELS, MAHONEY, MEAGHER JJA 9 November 1989 [1989] NSWCA 165 Samuels, Mahoney and Meagher JJA We are of the opinion that leave to appeal should be refused. It is not the practice of the court to give reasons for such an order but since we have heard full argument we think we should add one or two comments. First of all it has to be borne in mind that before Mr Justice Hunt it was accepted that the applicable principles of the law were those which had been expressed in Hansen v The Border Morning Mail Pty Ltd (1987) 9 NSWLR 44. The argument that we heard is, I presume, somewhat refined from that which was offered to the learned Judge below. Indeed, clearly in two respects propositions were put to us which were not put below. This of itself of course is not fatal to an application for leave to appeal, but is a matter which we are entitled to and do take into account. Next we can perceive no error of law in the decision which his Honour gave and so far as that is concerned we are generally of the opinion that Mr McClintock's answers to Mr Neil's submissions are correct. Finally, we do not think that the learned Judge's decision is so wrong as to indicate that it must have proceeded upon some failure properly to exercise discretion which is not otherwise revealed. We bear in mind that this declaration was a Classic exercise of discretion in a matter of practice and procedure. That type of decision erects a considerable obstacle to any attempts to surmount it by way of appeal or review. Those in short are the reasons which have led us to make the orders which we do and which are that the application for leave to appeal is refused and the summons is dismissed with costs.