STANLEY v SPURWAY SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL MEAGHER JA and HANDLEY JA 17 November 1997 [1997] NSWCA 291 Meagher JA. We are considered the matter over lunch and we are minded at the moment neither to dismiss the application nor to succeed to it but to take a third course which my brother Handley JA will explain to you. Handley JA. Consequent upon the amendment to the District Court Act to require leave to appeal in cases involving judgment where the amount in issue in the appeal is less than $100,000, the Court has given consideration to the most convenient method of disposing of leave applications resulting from this amendment to section 127(2)(c) of the District Court Act. Many of these cases are likely to involve and require consideration of the evidence which cannot conveniently be managed on the hearing of a leave application. The Court will be dealing with matters where there is an arguable basis for granting leave to appeal in running lists and in my judgment a convenient course in this case is to stand the matter over for hearing in the running list where three judges will be available and if the case is one where leave to appeal should properly be given, the Court can proceed to hear and determine the leave application without requiring a further hearing. In thisparticular case we do not have all the evidence although it is now conceded that the plaintiff was making a right hand turn. In my view it is arguable that the trial judge failed to give proper weight to the fact that the plaintiff was making a right hand turn and was obliged, by traffic regulations, to make that turn in safety. It is therefore arguable that his apportionment was vitiated by the failure to take into account that relevant consideration. I would propose that the case be stood over for hearing at a future time in a running list. Further directions will be given for the preparation of appeal papers and the like by the Registrar. Meagher JA. I agree. The orders therefore will be as proposed by Mr Justice Handley. Handley JA. The stay has now expired. I think the plaintiff should receive 40 per cent. Some verdict in her favour is certain. The Judge's view on negligence and contributory negligence is not likely to be disturbed and indeed was not challenged, so all we have is a question of whether, instead of being 40/60, it should be something else. Meagher JA. There will be no stay. 40 per cent to be paid. Handley JA. I think we also ought to probably excuse the procedural default which would extend the time. Meagher JA. Costs will be costs in the summons. Orders accordingly.