Wsol v John James Memorial Hospital

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:	Wsol v John James Memorial Hospital
Citation:	[2015] ACTCA 59
Hearing Date(s):	21 October, 11 November 2015
DecisionDate:	11 November 2015
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	Leave to appeal is refused. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the application.
Catchwords:	COURT OF APPEAL – Application – leave to appeal – no prospect of success – leave refused.
Parties:	Lolita Wsol (Applicant) John James Memorial Hospital (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Self-represented (Applicant) Mr L Andrews (Respondent)
Solicitors Self-represented (Applicant) Snedden Hall & Gallop (Respondent)
File Number(s):	ACTCA 41 of 2015
Decision under appeal:	Court: Supreme Court of the ACT Before: Refshauge J Date of Decision: 28 August 2015 Case Title: Wsol v John James Memorial Hospital Citation: [2015] ACTSC 378

BURNS J:

I have before me an application by Lolita Wsol for leave to appeal from what is said to be an interlocutory judgment entered by Refshauge J on 28 August this year. There is an issue as to whether the judgment which was entered by Refshauge J was interlocutory or final, but for present purposes it is unnecessary to resolve that issue.

As I have indicated to Ms Wsol, who is unfortunately unrepresented and has been unable to obtain either legal representation or appropriate advice, despite my having adjourned the matter until today from 21 October this year, there are certain principles and requirements that govern applications of this nature. Amongst the principles that govern applications of this nature is the requirement that I be satisfied that there is some prospect of success with respect to the appeal if leave is granted.

On the material which has been placed before me I am satisfied that there is no prospect for success. I adjourned the matter on 21 October, having advised Ms Wsol that on the material that was then before me it was inevitable that I would refuse the application. Nothing has changed since that time, and as I have said, there are no real prospects of success with respect to any appeal if leave is granted. For that reason leave will be refused.

The respondent has also sought the costs of the application. I do not see any reason, and nothing has been put to me, in any event, why you should not pay the costs of the unsuccessful application. So I therefore order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application.

I certify that the preceding four [4] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Burns.

Associate:

Date: 4 December 2015

The applicant, Wsol, sought leave to appeal a decision of the John James Memorial Hospital. The precise nature of the dispute between the parties and the original decision being appealed are not detailed in the provided text. The application for leave to appeal was heard by Burns J in the Court of Appeal.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether Wsol had any prospect of success in its proposed appeal. This required the court to assess the merits of the grounds of appeal that Wsol intended to raise against the decision of the John James Memorial Hospital.

Burns J determined that the application for leave to appeal had no prospect of success. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused. The applicant, Wsol, was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established