The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal from a decision of Leeming JA dismissing an appeal from the Local Court, holding that none of the five proposed grounds of appeal (unconscionable conduct, non est factum, lack of capacity, unjust contracts) had been raised before the primary judge and involved contested factual investigations that had never been conducted. The Court confirmed that the principle against raising new points on appeal applies with even greater vigour where leave is required and the applicant must demonstrate an issue of principle, question of general public importance, or reasonably clear injustice, and that the lack of legal representation does not excuse the failure to raise matters below where the lay advocate capably represented the applicant's interests.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.