Carnemolla v Adelaide Bank Ltd

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Carnemolla v Adelaide Bank Ltd [2012] NSWCA 152

Hearing dates:

14 May 2012

Decision date:

14 May 2012

Before:

Whealy JA

Decision:

1. The matter is adjourned to 28 May at 2.15pm, as are the outstanding motions.

2. Costs reserved.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - interlocutory application - Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 7.36 - self-represented applicants - applicants of limited means - complex proceedings - application for referral to the Pro Bono Panel - order granted in the interests of the administration of justice.

Legislation Cited:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) - r 7.36

Category:

Interlocutory applications

Parties:

Lucia Carnemolla (Applicant in 12/022709 and 12/081298)
Sebastian Carnemolla (Applicant in 12/081298)
Adelaide Bank Limited (Respondent in 12/022709 and 12/081298)

Representation:

Counsel:
In person (Applicants)
G.A. Sirtes SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
In person (Applicants)
MacGillivrays Solicitors (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2012/022709, 2012/081298

 Decision under appeal 

Jurisdiction:

9111

Citation:

Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd v Carnemolla

Date of Decision:

2011-05-26 00:00:00

Before:

Hislop J

File Number(s):

2007/263386

Judgment

Ex tempore judgment

1. WHEALY JA: In this matter there are three motions before the Court, and a further motion has been foreshadowed. The proceedings arise out of a decision given by his Honour Justice Hislop in the Common Law Division of the Supreme Court.

1. From what I can gather from the material that has been placed before me, it seems that his Honour gave a decision on 26 May 2011 in which he made orders for the recovery of possession of land which was described as Lot 1 Strata Plan 63720, the property being known as xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Smithfield. Mr and Mrs Carnemolla are the owners of that land.

1. His Honour granted leave for the issue of a writ of possession in respect of that land but stayed the execution of the writ of possession until 30 January 2012. His Honour made other orders and entered other verdicts of judgments, which it is not necessary for me to detail in these brief reasons.

1. Since that time there have been a number of applications before judges of this Court, but the present position is, as I understand it, Mr and Mrs Carnemolla (who are representing themselves) have lodged an appeal to this Court. Again it is not necessary for me to detail the complexity of procedural matters that are the background to this appeal. It is sufficient to mention that there was originally filed a summons seeking leave to appeal, although it appears that leave was not required.

1. The draft notice of appeal…