An appeal against interlocutory case management orders determining the sequence in which applications are heard must allege discretionary error consistently with House v The King; a mere assertion that the decision is 'unjust' is insufficient. A stay of ongoing primary proceedings pending such an appeal requires satisfaction of a test of necessity — the outcome absent the stay must be so adverse and severe that the attainment of justice requires appellate interlocutory intervention.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.