Milner v Conetip Pty Ltd
[2002] QCA 67
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)
- Milner v Conetip Pty Ltd[2002] QCA 67
- Add to List
Milner v Conetip Pty Ltd[2002] QCA 67
Milner v Conetip Pty Ltd[2002] QCA 67
COURT OF APPEAL
DAVIES JA
THOMAS JA
MUIR J
Appeal No 238 of 2000
BRUCE POUNTNEY MILNER(First Plaintiff)
and
ALAN RICHARD TAYLOR(Second Plaintiff)
and
CONETIP PTY LTD(First Defendant)
(ACN 062 625 469)
and
PALM SPRINGS VILLAGE PTY LTD(Second Defendant)
NOT PARTY TO APPEAL
BRISBANE
DATE 11/03/2002
JUDGMENT
DAVIES JA: This purports to be a notice of appeal against judgments delivered in the trial division of the Supreme Court on 20 November 2001 and 13 December 2001.
However the substance of the notice of appeal document indicates that it is only an appeal against orders for costs made on 20 November and 13 December 2001.
The application for leave to appeal appears to be based on the assumption that, because the notice of appeal was filed more than 28 days after the judgment given on 30 November, an extension of time might be necessary.
The only substantive order sought in this purported appeal is that part of the order numbered 4 made by the learned primary Judge concerning the assessment of the appellant's entitlement to recover costs be set aside and that the applicant appellant be entitled to costs not merely on a standard basis, as his Honour ordered, but on an indemnity basis.
The application and appeal is plainly in respect of an order as to costs only within the meaning of section 253 of the Supreme Court Act 1995. Accordingly it cannot be made except by leave of the Judge making the order, and no application having been made to the Judge for leave, the appeal is not competent.
It follows that the application is not either, and I therefore strike out the notice of appeal and the application for leave.
THOMAS JA: I agree.
MUIR J: I agree.
DAVIES JA: The notice of appeal and the application for leave to appeal are both struck out.