LAPORTE GROUP AUSTRALIA LTD v VATSELIAS AND ORS [1992] NSWCA 129

LAPORTE GROUP AUSTRALIA LTD v VATSELIAS AND ORS

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

KIRBY P, PRIESTLEY and MEAGHER JJA 31 August 1992, 31 August 1992 [1992] NSWCA 129

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Court of Appeal — interlocutory or final orders — orders in Supreme Court (Young J) reserve for separate determination damages recoverable and certain questions of costs — Registrar refers purported appeal to Court — summons for leave to appeal — urgency of determination — held: (Kirby P and Meagher JA; Priestley JA assuming but not deciding): The orders of Young J were interlocutory and leave to appeal was required; (2) (by the Court): Leave should be granted in the circumstances.

Supreme Court Act 1970, s101(1)(e).

Kirby P Before the Court is a motion which seeks either a declaration in effectthat leave to appeal is not required or, if leave is required, leave to appeal from a judgment of Young J given on 14 May 1992.

Earlier Priestley JA expedited the hearing of the appeal. It is certainly the view of the Court that the appeal should be expedited. However, when the matter was returned before the Registrar for the purpose of fixing the date for the hearing of the appeal, the Registrar drew attention to the fact that it seemed to him that the purported appeal was misconceived and that the claimant required leave to appeal.

In my view the Registrar was perfectly correct in this conclusion. Young J has left two matters outstanding by his decision of 14 May 1992.

The first related to the assessment of damages on the premises exposed in his Honour's reasons. The second related to certain issues as to costs. Accordingly, the orders of Young J were, in my opinion, interlocutory by reason of s101(1)(e) of the Supreme Court Act 1970. They therefore require leave from this Court to appeal.