Hyne & Son Pty Ltd v Cockburn
[2000] QCA 5
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Appeal Determined (QCA)
- Hyne & Son Pty Ltd v Cockburn[2000] QCA 5
- Add to List
Hyne & Son Pty Ltd v Cockburn[2000] QCA 5
Hyne & Son Pty Ltd v Cockburn[2000] QCA 5
COURT OF APPEAL
de JERSEY CJ
MCMURDO P
THOMAS JA
Appeal No 9326 of 1999
JOHN TREVOR COCKBURN Respondent (Plaintiff)
v
HYNE & SON PTY LTD Applicant (Defendant)
BRISBANE
DATE 02/02/2000
JUDGMENT
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Leave should not be given in my view. Further ventilation of the issues is better reserved to any appeal following a trial judgment. No injustice of any relevance would result from our taking that course.
There is no question of the loss of any right to plead or ventilate a limitations point, as had been confirmed to us. Furthermore, proper comprehensive consideration of the relevant issues may well involve factual determinations which have not yet been made, for example, whether the claimed injuries amount to injuries within the particular terms of the statutory definition.
It is not, in short, an appropriate vehicle in which we should be making definitive judgments in an area of the law in which a number of cases are currently coming through the system. I would refuse the application.
THE PRESIDENT: I agree that this is not an appropriate case in which to grant leave for an interlocutory judgment for the reasons given by the Chief Justice.
THOMAS JA: I agree.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Costs reserved.