Luck v Hunter

BURCHETT J 1 What I am about to say represents the reasons for judgment of the Court. There is no ground of legal principle to justify a grant of leave in these cases to appeal against the interlocutory orders that were made. There was no error of principle by the trial judge and no proven miscarriage of justice. The orders transferring the various proceedings say nothing about how or where interlocutory proceedings should be dealt with. It is evident that there is a potential for significant interlocutory applications in these matters. The order does not preclude a judge ordering that a particular interlocutory hearing take place in Melbourne, or elsewhere, before that judge, or before some other judge. 2 There may be circumstances in which it could be unfair to require the Applicant to conduct an interlocutory hearing by video-link. We are quite sure the judge who decides that will take the Applicant's particular difficulties into account, and the refusal of leave today must not be taken as preventing the judge taking any particular course. As the matter was raised during argument, we should point out that the Rules of Court permit a party to file documents at a registry other than the registry to which the matter is assigned. 3 The formal order of the Court is that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed. The Applicant must pay the costs of those Respondents who appeared and have sought their costs, but there is to be no taxation until the completion of the principal proceedings.