NSW Caselaw
ROGERS v WENTWORTH SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL
PRIESTLEY JA, HANDLEY JA and BROWNIE AJA 17 August 1994
[1994] NSWCA 267
Priestley JA. MacLEAN: This is an application for extension of time and for leave to appeal against an order for costs made by his Honour Sully J on 24 June 1994, some day or so after a jury had returned a verdict in favour of the opponent in an action for assault in the sum of $2,000.
His Honour calculated interest on that verdict at $680 and the total judgment therefore is $2680, which falls beneath the figure that is applicable under Part 52, rule 24 —
PRIESTLEY JA: Did you prepare the written submission that has been filed on behalf of Mr Rogers?
MacLEAN: I did.
PRIESTLEY JA: We have all read that so you can start from the assumption that we know the outline of your argument.
MacLEAN: What does your Honour seek of me? That I speak to the argument or to the application for leave?
PRIESTLEY JA: I think you should deal with your application for extension of time and your application for leave together. As we have read your written submissions, you may, if you wish, confine yourself to emphasising or elaborating on any particular part of your written submissions which you regard as particularly relevant and important.
MacLEAN: It would seem that the threshold difficulty that the claimant has is that this is an application for leave in relation to an order for costs. Section 101(2)(c), given this is an order for costs only that is under challenge, requires leave. Although it is probably trite, there are some passages in one of the authorities the claimant would like to rely on in relation to the substantive question of parameters in regard to such an application for leave, which places difficulties in his way. I refer to the decision of this court in John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Palmer (1987) 8 NSWR 301, paragraph (b). 'It should show that ... incorrect way.""have.' It also appears at the start of that paragraph, where again he says: 'I am not prepared ... did not have.'
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate