CBX2 Pty Limited v National Australia Bank Limited

[2016] NSWCA 79

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Security for costs
3. › Appeal from Associate Judge to single judge
4. › Further appeal to Court of Appeal
5. › Leave to appeal
6. › Whether primary judge erred in disturbing factual findings of Associate Judge
7. › Whether discretion miscarried
8. › Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 1335
9. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 42.21
1. Appeal
2. › Leave to appeal
3. › Interlocutory orders
4. › Matters of practice and procedure
5. › Standard for grant of leave
6. › Whether issues of principle, questions of public importance, or injustice by reason of error
7. › Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 101(1)(a), 101(2)(e)
1. Appeal
2. › Appellate review of discretionary decisions
3. › House v The King principles
4. › Whether exercise of discretion miscarried by reason of mistaken findings of fact
5. › Application to security for costs orders
1. Appeal
2. › Appellate review of factual findings
3. › Warren v Coombes principles
4. › Findings not dependent on credibility
5. › Whether appellate court entitled to substitute its own findings

Quick Take

An applicant seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from a single judge's decision on appeal from an Associate Judge on a matter of practice and procedure ordinarily faces a difficult task and must demonstrate more than that the primary judge was arguably wrong. The House v The King principles apply to appellate review of discretionary security for costs decisions, and an exercise of discretion may miscarry where the court mistakes the facts upon which the discretion is based. Where factual findings are not credibility-based, the Warren v Coombes principles permit the appellate court to substitute its own findings.