COHEN v BELGRAVE INDUSTRIES PTY LTD [1992] NSWCA 43
NSW Caselaw
Full text
Select any passage to save a personal note with optional tags.
COHEN v BELGRAVE INDUSTRIES PTY LTD
SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL
KirBY P, CLARKE and CRIPPS JJA
1 June 1992, 1 June 1992
[1992] NSWCA 43
PRACTICE and PROCEDURE — error in original reasons — error drawn to
attention of judge — supplementary reasons — failure to afford opportunity for
additional submissions — held: If error of procedure occurred, resulting judgement
correct and unassailable — leave to appeal refused.
Kirby P (Expressing the reasons of the Court): The Court is of the opinion that
this is not an appropriate matter for leave to appeal.
The application for leave is dismissed upon the basis that the Court is not
convinced that any error has been shown in the judgment of Allen J, as
supplemented by the later judgment issued by his Honour affirming his earlier
orders.
Objection was raised by the claimant to procedure which was followed by his
Honour in proceeding to the supplementary judgment without affording the
claimant the opportunity to put submissions to him which might have persuaded
him to change his mind. However, it was conceded by counsel appearing for the
claimant, correctly in the Court's view, that the resulting judgment was correct
and unassailable. Accordingly, the procedure which led to the complaint of error
is irrelevant to the judgment which was entered.
It is therefore not necessary, in the Court's opinion, for the Court to enter upon
the question of whether procedural error occurred. For my own part I am not
convinced that a procedural error did occur. However, if it did, it did not affect
the correctness of the judgment finally entered by Allen J. It is against that
judgment that the summons for leave to appeal is brought. As that judgment was
right - or has not been shown to be attended by sufficient doubt - it should stand.
The summons for leave to appeal is dismissed. The claimant must pay the
opponent's costs.
COUNSEL:
Claimant: SJ Burchett
Opponent: GPF Rundle
SOLICITORS:
Claimant: Billington McClure Lee
Opponent: Hemphill and Co
Related laws
No related documents linked yet.
You've got 21 of 22 free Acts left this visit. Sign up anytime for Facts, Related, and study briefs too.