Solomon v Psychologists Board of Western Australia

[2005] WASCA 235

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

Leave to appeal an interlocutory District Court judgment under s 79(1)(b) of the District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 (WA) requires the applicant to show both that the decision is attended with sufficient doubt and that substantial injustice would result if it remained unreversed (Wilson v Metaxas [1979] WAR 285). Without leave, the appeal is incompetent.
A defence may plead contextual facts, such as the complaint that led to a disciplinary inquiry, where those facts are relevant to pleaded defences of immunity and privilege. Such facts are not liable to be struck out merely because the plaintiff disputes them, since factual disputes are for trial.
Additional trial time and increased costs from issues that may later prove unnecessary do not amount to substantial injustice for the purpose of granting leave to appeal an interlocutory decision.