WENTWORTH v WENTWORTH [1992] NSWCA 268

WENTWORTH v WENTWORTH

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL

MAHONEY JA, PRIESTLEY JA and CLARKE JA 28 August 1992

[1992] NSWCA 268

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE — application for leave to appeal against refusal of interlocutory injunction — claimant (1) argues errors of fact and law, (2) seeks orders for oral examination of opponent and production of documents — Held, (1) no error of fact or law, (2) no reason to make such orders.

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE — application to exercise original jurisdiction following refusal of same relief at first instance — claimant in effect seeking rehearing — Held, no reason to entertain application to hear matter as if first instance proceedings had never taken place.

Priestley JA. On 11 June 1992 Young J dismissed an application by Ms K. Wentworth for an interlocutory injunction. Young J gave reasons for his decision in which he set out the relevant facts and arguments. On 12 June 1992 Ms Wentworth filed a summons (No 40320 of 1992) seeking leave to appeal from Young J's decision.

The summons was fully argued by Ms Wentworth on 19 June 1992. The court reserved its decision. At that stage I did not think anything put by Ms Wentworth justified this court in granting leave to appeal. Having reconsidered it since, I am still of that opinion.

Further, I do not think that the matters relied upon by Ms Wentworth have enough weight to warrant my indicating my reasons in any more than a very brief and general way. The facts of the matter as at the time of Young J's decision weresufficiently set out in what he then said. So were his reasons. They are on record and I will not repeat them.

In her submissions Ms Wentworth contended that Young J's reasons disclosed errors both of fact and law. I do not agree.

Further, when the material before Young J is looked at broadly, it is quite plain, in my opinion, that it did not support an assertion essential to Ms Wentworth's case, that there was reasonable ground for her fear that her brother was seeking to bring about a situation in which orders for payment of money which she already had against him, and orders for payment of money she hoped to obtain from the High Court, could not be met. The material before Young J was in my opinion all the other way. It included an offer (the detail of which is set out on p 3 of his reasons) which he would have been justified in thinking offered Ms Wentworth all she could have expected to get from her application (or more).