Leslie James Thomas v Natwest Markets Australia Pty Ltd

[2012] HCASL 184

LESLIE JAMES THOMAS

v

NATWEST MARKETS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

[2012] HCASL 184
M57/2012

1. On 14 February 2000, Tenth Vandy Pty Ltd ("the company") sued the respondent in the Supreme Court of Victoria on claims arising out of its retail tenancy in a shopping centre of which the respondent stood in the position of lessor as mortgagee in possession.  The applicant, Mr Thomas, is the sole director of the company.  In broad terms, the company claimed that the respondent's re-entry for non-payment of rent was unconscionable.  On 8 January 2010, the proceeding was determined by the Supreme Court (Croft J) adversely to the company.  Croft J later made a costs order against Mr Thomas. 

2. In the Court of Appeal (Nettle and Neave JJA and Bell AJA) the company appealed against the judgment of Croft J and Mr Thomas sought leave to appeal against the costs order.  The Court of Appeal considered the applicant's contentions in detail and on 28 May 2012 refused both applications.

3. Mr Thomas now applies for special leave to appeal "from the Costs Orders and the whole of the judgment of the Court of Appeal".  To the extent that he seeks to disturb the judgment against the company, there may be a question about his standing to seek special leave to appeal[1].  It is unnecessary to resolve the question in this application because the alleged errors are in any event not made out, nor would they justify a grant of special leave to appeal.  In relation to the costs order against Mr Thomas, no error is shown in the approach of the Court of Appeal.

   [1]See Cuthbertson v Hobart Corporation (1921) 30 CLR 16 at 23-25; [1921] HCA 51; The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal (2012) 86 ALJR 1126 at 1132-1133 [25]; 290 ALR 750 at 759 [25]; [2012] HCA 36.

4. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

S.M. Kiefel
12 December 2012 S.J. Gageler