WILSON v LEVY SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL PRIESTLEY JA, POWELL JA and COHEN AJA 31 October 1995 [1995] NSWCA 523 Priestley JA, Powell JA and Cohen AJA. The claimant in this summons seeks leave to appeal against the costs order made by His Honour Judge Christie after a trial in which Judge Christie had entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff Mr Levy, (the opponent). The claimant had argued before Judge Christie that he was entitled to a costs order pursuant to Pt 19A r 9(6) of the District Court Rules, unless the court otherwise ordered. Judge Christie ordered otherwise. The claimant submitted that leave should be granted so that the court could correct what was said to be either a clear departure from principle by the trial judge, or a misinterpretation of the rules. The combination of three considerations leads the court to refuse to grant leave. The first is that from the materials before the court it seems clear that the court does not now, and would not on the hearing of an appeal be able to know the full course of events concerning costs which were known to thetrial judge. The court's picture of certain aspects of the facts relating to costs is not at all clear and does not seem to be curable. The second is that on what is presently known to the court, although it may be that there is reason for thinking the trial judge did not adhere to the letter of the relevant rules, the result he arrived at does not seem to be unjust. The third consideration is that the court does not readily grant leave to appeal against costs orders and tends to leave the making of appropriate costs orders very much in the hands of trial judges, unless some important matter of principle or manifest injustice is involved. The result is that the present case is not one in which it is appropriate that leave to appeal be granted. The summons is dismissed with costs. Orders accordingly.