John Goubran & Associates Pty Ltd v The Owners – Strata Plan 57150

[2026] NSWCA 188

NSW Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

1. APPEALS — Leave to appeal — whether primary judge erred by failing to address claims for the cost of repairs and interest — primary judge erred in failing to address each claim — claim for the cost of repairs faces basic problems — small quantum in dispute — failure to apply to the primary judge under UCPR r 36.16 to set aside or vary judgment — primary judge’s omission contributed to by the applicant — leave to appeal refused

Where an applicant for leave to appeal complains that the primary judge failed to address a claim by reason of misunderstanding or oversight, the applicant's unexplained failure to apply under UCPR r 36.16 to set aside or vary the judgment within the 14-day period weighs heavily against the grant of leave, because the error could have been corrected more efficiently and proportionately at first instance.
Even where error by the primary judge is conceded, the existence of error does not automatically establish a reasonably clear injustice warranting leave to appeal; the court must also consider the small quantum in dispute, the proportionality of costs (s 60 Civil Procedure Act 2005), the applicant's own contribution to the error, and whether the claim faced substantive difficulties on the merits.
A claim for pre-judgment interest under s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 is not abandoned merely because it was not addressed in closing submissions, but the failure to prosecute it clearly is relevant to the assessment of injustice and the discretion to grant leave to appeal.