Lal v Patel; Patel v Lal (No 2)

[2012] NSWCA 226

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Lal v Patel; Patel v Lal (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 226

Hearing dates:

On the papers

Decision date:

26 July 2012

Before:

Macfarlan JA at [1]
Sackville AJA at [5]

Decision:

(1) Strike out the Notice of Appeal as incompetent.

(2) Order the appellants to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

(3) Dismiss the application for leave to appeal with costs.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords:

APPEAL - application for leave to appeal dismissed - no issue of principle

Category:

Interlocutory applications

Parties:

Patricia Lal (First Applicant)
Hasmukh Lal (Second Applicant)
Jaswanti Patel (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
Applicants in person
M Suliman (Solicitor) (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Applicants in person
M Suliman (Respondent)

File Number(s):

CA 2012/49614; CA 2011/305566

 Decision under appeal 

Citation:

Patel v Lal [2011] NSWSC 603; Patel v Lal [2011] NSWSC 678

Before:

Biscoe AJ

File Number(s):

SC 2009/290378

Judgment

1. MACFARLAN JA: The Court delivered judgment in this matter on 20 April 2012 ([2012] NSWCA 110). The Court indicated that, subject to resolution of a question concerning the constitution of the proceedings, it would order first that the Notice of Appeal be struck out as incompetent and the appellants pay the respondent's costs and secondly that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed with costs ([8]).

1. Pursuant to leave given to the parties, the respondent has provided satisfactory evidence that H Lal & Associates Pty Ltd appeared in the proceedings at first instance before final orders were made. This satisfies the Court's concern not only in relation to the participation of that company in the proceedings but also that of The Lal Property Family Trust, as it appears the company was trustee of the Trust.

1. In these circumstances the following orders should be made as foreshadowed in the judgment of 20 April 2012:

(1) Strike out the Notice of Appeal as incompetent.

(2) Order the appellants to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

(3) Dismiss the application for leave to appeal with costs.

1. I add that, contrary to the terms upon which leave to lodge further submissions was granted, Mrs Lal lodged extensive further written submissions dealing with the merits of her application which was argued and, subject to one point, determined on 20 April 2012. I have disregarded these submissions to the extent that they travelled beyond the scope of leave granted. I have taken the same approach to an email from Mrs Lal dated 18 June 2012 which asserted that there were errors in the Court's judgment of 20 April 2012.

1. SACKVILLE AJA: I agree with Macfarlan JA.

**********