Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Iuli & Anor [2014] ACTCA 50 — BarristerAI

Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Iuli & Anor

[2014] ACTCA 50

ACT Court of Appeal7 December 2014

Ratio Decidendi

A declaratory order is a final order, not an interlocutory order, because it operates in law as res judicata or issue estoppel and binds the parties.

Judges

Ross JJ

Quick Take

In the ACT, an appeal from a Master's refusal to make a declaratory order lies to a single judge under s 9(2)(a) of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), not to the Court of Appeal under s 37E(2)(a)(i), because such a refusal is an interlocutory order. The distinction between making a declaration (final) and refusing a declaration (interlocutory) is confirmed.

Headnote

No headnote yet — we'll generate the full structured AI headnote for you.

Generate the headnote

Free trial · no card required

Linked Principles

Legal principles extracted from this case

01A declaratory order is a final order, not an interlocutory order, because it operates in law as res judicata or issue estoppel and binds the parties.
02
03
04

Start free trial

Free trial — no card required

Case Details

Citation[2014] ACTCA 50

CourtACTCA

JurisdictionAct

Decision Date7 December 2014

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

Start free trial

No card · cancel anytime

Judgment

Judges

Ross JJ

Authorities Cited5›

Cases considered by Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Iuli & Anor

Referred to (5)

Victoria Legal Aid v The County Court of Victoria & Anor [2004] VSCA 113 Carr v Finance Corporation of Australia Ltd (No 1) [1981] HCA 20 Licul v Corney [1976] HCA 6 Hall v Nominal Defendant [1966] HCA 36 [1962] Ch 784

Subsequent Judicial Consideration1›

Cases that have considered Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Iuli & Anor

Referred to (1)

[2015] NSWSC 594

Judicial Consideration (Chronological)

[2015] NSWSC 594Referred to

On an application to set aside a statutory demand under section 459G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the Wallaroo-Yorke rule for statutory demands requires the applicant to identify with specificity the offsetting claim relied upon, supported by evidence sufficient to demonstrate a genuine triable issue

On an application to set aside a statutory demand under section 459G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the Wallaroo-Yorke rule for statutory demands requires the applicant to identify with specificity the offsetting claim relied upon, supported by evidence sufficient to demonstrate a genuine triable issue.

Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Iuli & Anor at [30]

A court exercising federal jurisdiction may grant an anti-suit injunction to restrain foreign proceedings only where the continuation of those proceedings would be vexatious or oppressive and where the balance of convenience favours the grant of relief

A court exercising federal jurisdiction may grant an anti-suit injunction to restrain foreign proceedings only where the continuation of those proceedings would be vexatious or oppressive and where the balance of convenience favours the grant of relief.

Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Iuli & Anor at [37]

Ratio Decidendi

Judges

Quick Take

Headnote

Linked Principles

Case Details

Built by Barristers,For Australian Law.

Judgment

Authorities Cited5›

Subsequent Judicial Consideration1›

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.