Amgad v Cairns

[2022] NSWCA 256

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

Amgad v Cairns [2022] NSWCA 256

Hearing dates:

01 December 2022

Date of orders:

01 December 2022

Decision date:

01 December 2022

Before:

Macfarlan JA at [1], [14];
Kirk JA at [10]

Decision:

Dismiss the summons seeking leave to appeal

Catchwords:

APPEAL — application for leave to proceed — adjournment application refused

Legislation Cited:

Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), s 14(1)

Cases Cited:

Amgad v Cairns [2022] NSWCA 101

Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd (2016) 259 CLR 1; [2016] HCA 16

The Age Company Ltd v Liu (2013) 82 NSWLR 268; [2013] NSWCA 26

Category:

Procedural rulings

Parties:

Jamal Amgad (Applicant)
Stephen William Cairns (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
Applicant (Self-represented)
S W Cairns (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Turnbull Kasif Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2022/14115

 Decision under appeal 

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Date of Decision:

03 December 2021

Before:

Robison DCJ

File Number(s):

2020/144093

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENTS

1. MACFARLAN JA: This is an application for leave to appeal from a decision of Judge Robison in the District Court, the decision being dated 3 December 2021. Before this Court Mr Amgad has represented himself and Mr Cairns, who is a barrister and the respondent, represents himself also. Mr Amgad has made an application for adjournment, which this Court has decided to refuse. To understand the reasons for refusing the application, it is necessary to outline some of the history of the matter.

2. Judge Robison’s judgment was apparently given after a final hearing in the District Court and, although White JA in a previous judgment to which I will later refer, referred to it as involving a summary dismissal, it appears that the decision of Judge Robison was, in fact, a final decision.

3. Mr Amgad filed a summons in this Court on 24 March 2022 seeking leave to appeal. He chose to do that, rather than file a notice of appeal, presumably on the basis that he accepts that he needs leave to appeal because, although the judgment below is a final judgment, he is not in a position to establish that, if successful, he would obtain a judgment from this Court of or in excess of $100,000.

4. On 22 June this year Gleeson JA of this Court delivered a judgment declining to make a pro bono referral in favour of Mr Amgad. His Honour described the proposed appeal as devoid of merit. I have given independent consideration to the materials before us and to Gleeson JA’s judgment and have formed the view that Gleeson JA was correct and that the appeal is, in fact, devoid of merit.

5. On 7 November this year, Mr Amgad, by notice of motion, sought an adjournment of the hearing fixed for today, that is, 1 December, until he could find a legal representative. On 21 November White JA delivered a judgment with full reasons refusing the adjournment. I have mentioned that White JA referred, mistakenly in my view, to the judgment in…