Bezzina v Transport for NSW

Link copied
Case Copied 15 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bezzina v Transport for NSW [2025] NSWCA 216
Hearing dates: 22 September 2025
Date of orders: 23 September 2025
Decision date: 23 September 2025
Before: Free JA
Decision:

The notice of motion filed 9 September 2025 is dismissed.

Catchwords:

PROCEDURAL RULINGS – Use of private solicitors by government agency – Request for order prohibiting use of private solicitors – Request for sound recording – Request for protective costs order – Oaths of office of judicial officers – De facto officers doctrine

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 98

Free Access to Courts Act 1400 2 Hen 4 c 1

Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 (NSW), s 8(1)

Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 38(b)

Oaths Act 1900 (NSW), s 11(1)

Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW), s 200(4)

Transport Administration Act 1988 (NSW), cll 1(e), 9(1), Sch 1

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 42.7

Cases Cited:

Makucha v Sydney Water Corporation [2013] NSWCA 177

Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11

Parisienne Basket Shoes Pty Ltd v Whyte (1938) 59 CLR 369; [1938] HCA 7

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: Leslee-Ann Bezzina (Applicant)
Transport for NSW (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Applicant (self-represented)
G Lewer (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Hunt & Hunt Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2025/53366
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
District Court of New South Wales (Penrith)
Jurisdiction:
Civil
Date of Decision:
8 November 2024
Before:
Judge Everson SC
File Number(s):
2021/354847

JUDGMENT

  1. FREE JA: The applicant, Ms Leslee-ann Bezzina, is aggrieved about a conviction and resulting penalties that were imposed on her in respect of an alleged incident of speeding at Mount Victoria. A speed camera allegedly detected Ms Bezzina’s vehicle travelling at 68km/hr in a zone limited to 60 km/hr. A penalty notice with a fine of $123 was issued to her. Ms Bezzina was convicted of the speeding offence in the Local Court by Magistrate Gibson on 8 August 2022. She sought to appeal that conviction to the District Court. That led to a number of listings before different judges in the District Court which in turn became a source of further grievance for Ms Bezzina. The matter was first mentioned before Judge Payne on 29 September 2023. It was subsequently listed before Judge David, when a conviction was entered, apparently in the absence of Ms Bezzina. The matter was subsequently before Judge Everson SC on 8 November 2024, when his Honour declined requests by Ms Bezzina to reconsider the matter.

  2. Ms Bessina commenced proceedings in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court seeking judicial review of the decision or decisions of the District Court. The most recent version of the relevant originating process is a second amended summons filed 6 May 2025. In broad terms, Ms Bezzina contends that she was denied procedural fairness in the District Court and has not yet had the benefit of a fair hearing on the merits of her claim that she did…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bezzina v Transport for NSW and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2025] NSWCA 216
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Bezzina v Transport for NSW*, the applicant sought various orders against the respondent, Transport for NSW, including an order prohibiting the respondent from using private solicitors, a request for a sound recording of the proceedings, and a protective costs order. The matter came before the Honourable Justice Free JA.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Transport for NSW should be prohibited from engaging private solicitors to represent it in the proceedings. Ancillary to this, the court considered the applicant's requests for a sound recording and a protective costs order. The applicant also raised arguments concerning the oaths of office of judicial officers and the doctrine of de facto officers.

Justice Free JA dismissed the applicant's notice of motion. The court did not provide detailed reasons for this dismissal in the provided text, but the outcome indicates that the applicant's requests and arguments were unsuccessful. The notice of motion filed on 9 September 2025 was therefore dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The notice of motion filed 9 September 2025 is dismissed.

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.