Tyneside Property Management Pty Limited & Ors v Hammersmith Management Pty Ltd

TYNESIDE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED & ORS
v
HAMMERSMITH MANAGEMENT PTY LTD & ANOR
[2015] HCASL 127
S30/2015

The applicants were unsuccessful in proceedings brought against the respondents in the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Brereton J). The applicants filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, and the respondents sought security for the costs of the appeal. Sackville AJA ordered the applicants to provide security. Sackville AJA accepted that the applicants were impecunious, but was not persuaded that an order for security would stultify the applicants' appeal given the potential availability of two sources of funds to the applicants: funds from their solicitors, who were prepared to act on a speculative basis; and funds from the daughter of the third applicant.
The applicants failed to provide the security within the time specified by Sackville AJA, and the respondents sought summary dismissal of the appeal. During this period, the applicants' solicitors ceased to represent the applicants. The applicants filed notices of motion out of time, seeking to have the orders of Sackville AJA set aside. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Basten, Meagher and Emmett JJA) dismissed the applicants' notices of motion and ordered that the appeal be dismissed unless the applicants provided security within a further specified time.
The applicants now seek special leave to appeal from the orders of the Court of Appeal. The applicants do not have legal representation and require an enlargement of time within which to lodge their application. The application therefore falls to be dealt with under rr 4.02 and 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).
We would grant the applicants an enlargement of time but would refuse special leave to appeal. The applicants have not identified any question of law which would warrant a grant of special leave, and there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision. The application is dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M. Bell
13 August 2015 S.J. Gageler

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Tyneside Property Management Pty Limited and others (the applicants) versus Hammersmith Management Pty Ltd and another (the respondents). The applicants sought an appeal against the decisions made by the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Brereton J), which were ultimately dismissed. The respondents, in turn, sought security for the costs of the appeal. Sackville AJA, while acknowledging the applicants' financial difficulties, ordered them to provide security for the appeal costs, considering the potential availability of funds from the applicants' solicitors and the daughter of the third applicant. When the applicants failed to provide the required security, the respondents sought summary dismissal of the appeal, which led to the applicants filing notices of motion out of time, requesting the orders of Sackville AJA to be set aside. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Basten, Meagher, and Emmett JJA) dismissed the applicants' notices of motion and ordered the dismissal of the appeal unless security was provided within a specified time. The applicants now seek special leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal's orders.

The legal issues before the court were whether special leave to appeal should be granted to the applicants and whether an enlargement of time should be allowed for the applicants to lodge their application. The applicants needed to demonstrate that there was a significant question of law warranting special leave, and the court also needed to consider whether the applicants' financial circumstances warranted an extension of time to lodge their application. The court examined whether the applicants had identified any question of law that warranted a grant of special leave and whether there was any reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision. The court further considered the applicants' request for an enlargement of time to lodge their application, given their financial circumstances.

The court granted the applicants an enlargement of time to lodge their application for special leave to appeal but ultimately refused special leave to appeal. The court found that the applicants had not identified any question of law that would warrant a grant of special leave, and there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision. The court found that the applicants' financial circumstances did warrant an enlargement of time to lodge their application, but this was not sufficient to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal. The court dismissed the applicants' application, and pursuant to r 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application.

The court's decision resulted in the dismissal of the applicants' application for special leave to appeal and an enlargement of time to lodge their application. The court found that while the applicants' financial circumstances warranted an extension of time, it did not warrant a grant of special leave to appeal. The court's decision highlights the importance of identifying significant questions of law to warrant special leave to appeal and the need for applicants to demonstrate the correctness of the lower court's decision. The court's decision also underscores the importance of considering the applicants' financial circumstances in determining whether to grant an enlargement of time to lodge an application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established