Boulos v Martin (No 3)

In *Boulos v Martin (No 3)*, the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal, considered an interlocutory application by a self-represented litigant seeking to review a prior decision that dismissed his appeal as incompetent. The applicant sought to have the earlier decision set aside.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant's appeal to the District Court was competent, particularly in light of the failure to file an affidavit explaining why leave to appeal was not required, as stipulated by s 127(2)(c) of the *District Court Act 1973* (NSW) and r 51.22 of the *Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005* (NSW). A further issue was whether the Registrar's acceptance of the filing of the application for review was determinative of its competence, and whether the earlier refusal of leave to appeal was unreasonable or unjust.

The Court reasoned that the filing of an application by the Registrar did not render an otherwise incompetent application competent. It was necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that leave to appeal was not required, or to seek leave to appeal, which had not been done. The Court found no basis to suggest that the earlier refusal of leave was unreasonable or unjust, and therefore, the application to review that decision lacked merit.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the respondent.