WORLD WINGS PROPERTY INVESTMENT CO PTY LTD v STEVENSON - MAGISTRATE MANLY LOCAL COURT; WORLD WINGS PROPERTY INVESTMENT CO PTY LTD v BUCKNELL and ANOR [1993] NSWCA 295

WORLD WINGS PROPERTY INVESTMENT CO PTY LTD v STEVENSON - MAGISTRATE MANLY LOCAL COURT; WORLD WINGS PROPERTY INVESTMENT CO PTY LTD v BUCKNELL and ANOR

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL CLARKE, MEAGHER and SHELLER JJA 8 November 1993

[1993] NSWCA 295

Clarke JA There are two notices of motion before the Court in which the appellant World Wings Property Investment Co Pty Ltd seeks orders that decisions handed down on 19 October 1993 be reopened and that the appellant be permitted to appeal from a decision of Judge Shillington and be granted leave to appeal a decision of Loveday J.

On 19 October there were before the Court two separate matters: the first was an application for leave to appeal from the decision of Loveday J in proceedings number 40564/1991; the second was a substantive appeal from the decision of Judge Shillington which was given in a matter which became matter number 40310/1991 in the Court of Appeal. On that occasion the Court declined to give leave to Mr Dennis Valassis, a major shareholder in the appellant company, to appear on behalf of that company.

Following the refusal of leave there was no appearance for the company and the applications were both dismissed.

In essence the appellant seeks to have those decisions reviewed. Today Mr Valassis has again appeared on behalf of the appellant and has sought the leave of the Court formally to appear on its behalf. The Court without ruling on the application has heard what he has to say on his right to be heard and in that respect he has referred to the provisions of the Supreme Court Rules Ptl1 r1(2) and Pt4 r4.1 and Pt4 r4.2. The Court has also heard submissions on the grounds for reopening.

It is not necessary, I think, for the Court to give a formal ruling as to whether he should be heard on behalf of the company or whether the Court has any jurisdiction to review the decisions previously made. Although there may be a substantial argument in favour of the view that the Court has no jurisdiction to do this, the applications may be dealt with upon the basis that there is simply no ground advanced which would entitle the Court even if it had jurisdiction to reopen the decisions handed down on 19 October 1993.