Huntingdale Village Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) v Korda

[2015] WASCA 101

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Appeal
2. › Leave to appeal
3. › Interlocutory decisions
4. › Principles governing grant of leave
5. › Whether substantial injustice established
6. › Whether decision attended with sufficient doubt
7. › Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 1 r 4A, O 1 r 4B
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Security for costs
3. › Delay in bringing application
4. › Whether delay unreasonable or unjustifiable
5. › Whether applicant lulled into belief security would not be required
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Security for costs
3. › Assessment of merits of substantive proceedings
4. › Whether appropriate to assess merits on security application
5. › Exceptional circumstances
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Security for costs
3. › Quantum of security
4. › Assessment as matter of impression
5. › Appellate review of discretionary assessment
6. › House v The King error

Quick Take

The requirement to establish substantial injustice for leave to appeal from an interlocutory decision is separate and distinct from the requirement to establish error; the former requires showing prejudice of a substantial character which cannot be remedied by the future course of proceedings. Where security for costs is ordered and there is no evidence of financial hardship to the funder or stultification of proceedings, substantial injustice is not established. The assessment of whether indemnity costs should be awarded for prosecuting a hopeless case is objective, by reference to an assumption that proper legal advice was given; the actual advice received is irrelevant.