The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order to the Divisional Court under Rule 62.02(4)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that another Superior Court decision created a conflicting authority warranting appellate review.
The court reviewed the alleged conflicting endorsement and the earlier motion decision and found no inconsistency in the legal principles applied.
The earlier endorsement addressed specific refusals on discovery and did not determine the threshold legal issue considered in the impugned decision.
The court held that the requirement of a “conflicting decision” was not met and therefore it was unnecessary to consider whether leave was desirable.
The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, with commentary emphasizing counsel’s duty to disclose relevant authorities to the court.
