Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: A v A [2016] NSWCA 17 Hearing dates: 16 February 2016 Date of orders: 19 February 2016 Decision date: 19 February 2016 Before: Gleeson JA at [1] Decision: The applicant’s notice of motion filed 6 October 2015 be dismissed with costs.
Catchwords: PRODEDURE – Court of appeal – interlocutory – Protective list – protected estate manager appointed tutor - application for leave to appeal without tutor – whether to grant a stay pending appeal – whether serious issues for determination by appeal – whether real risk of prejudice or damage – whether appeal would be rendered abortive or nugatory – balance of convenience – leave to issue subpoenas to attend to give evidence and to produce – whether special grounds for further evidence Legislation Cited: District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 44(1)(d)
NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009, s 41
Supreme Court Act, 1970 (NSW), ss 75A(7), 75A(8), 75A(9)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, rr 7.3(1), 42.1Cases Cited: A v A [2015] NSWSC 1778
Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685
Akins v National Australia Bank (1994) 34 NSWLR 155
Tjiong v Tjiong [2012] NSWCA 201
Kalifair Pty Ltd v Digi-Tech (Australia) Ltd [2002] NSWCA 383; 55 NSWLR 737Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Applicant: A Protected Person
Respondent: District Court Adversary of the Protected PersonRepresentation: Counsel:
Applicant (In person)
D Hanna (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Applicant (Self-represented)
Moray & Agnew (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2015/2428642015/290953 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Equity – Protective List
- Citation:
- [2015] NSWSC 1778
- Date of Decision:
- 27 November 2015
- Before:
- Lindsay J
- File Number(s):
- 2015/019513
2015/186082
Judgment
-
GLEESON JA: Before the Court on 16 February 2016 was a notice of motion filed 6 October 2015 by which the applicant, a protected person, sought no less than 28 orders, including that the NSW Trustee be removed from the “victims matter immediately” and that the court “review all orders made by COURTS in 8 years with miscarriage of justice from courts” (order 1). Other relief sought included the payment of interim compensation on the grounds of emergency hardship in respect of rent, medical and dental treatment; an advance payment of $5 million for loss of income; orders that “all solicitors who have acted in this matter since 2007” be subpoenaed to give evidence; orders that Doctor Patricia Jungfer and Doctor S Smith be subpoenaed to give evidence concerning their reports in relation to the applicant’s capacity; and orders for the transfer of the applicant’s District Court proceedings to this Court and the proceedings be listed for a 10-day hearing to determine “all negligence caused in this matter from 2007, professional negligence, medical negligence, by all parties who acted in this matter”.
-
The orders referred to above are sought in proceedings commenced by the applicant on 19 August 2015 seeking leave to appeal against orders made by a judge of the Supreme Court…
Continue reading A v A
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- A v A [2016] NSWCA 17
- Case
- [2016] NSWCA 17
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether to grant leave to appeal, whether to grant a stay of proceedings, and whether there were special grounds to permit the issuing of subpoenas for further evidence. These questions required the Court to assess the seriousness of the issues for determination, the risk of prejudice or damage to the parties, and whether the appeal would be rendered abortive if not heard. The Court also had to consider the balance of convenience in determining whether to allow further evidence.
Gleeson JA dismissed the applicant's notice of motion, finding that the threshold for granting leave to appeal and a stay had not been met. The Court applied principles relating to the exceptional circumstances required for interlocutory appeals and stays, particularly where a protected person's interests are involved. The decision underscored the need for a compelling demonstration of serious issues and a significant risk of prejudice to justify such measures, alongside a favourable balance of convenience.
The applicant's notice of motion filed 6 October 2015 was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
The applicant’s notice of motion filed 6 October 2015 be dismissed with costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.