Collier v Lancer (No 2)

Case [2013] NSWCA 186


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Collier v Lancer (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 186
Hearing dates:12 June 2013
Decision date: 21 June 2013
Before: Ward JA
Leeming JA
Decision:

1. Grant leave to extend the time for filing of the applicant's Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal to 29 January 2013.

2. Dismiss applicant's Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal with costs.

[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: PROCEDURE - whether extension of time to file summons seeking leave to appeal should be granted - whether leave to appeal should be granted from summary dismissal of proceedings - whether question of principle, public importance or circumstances where it is reasonably clear that an injustice has occurred by reason of error in the judgment the subject of the leave application going beyond what is merely arguable - where applicant seeking to re-agitate issues already determined in other proceedings relating to refusal of leave to withdraw guilty plea
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Supreme Court Act 1970
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Cases Cited: Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170
BHP Petroleum Pty Ltd v Oil Basins Ltd [1985] VR 756
Brimson v Rocla Concrete Pipes Limited [1982] 2 NSWLR 937
Darrell Lea (Vic) Pty Ltd v Union Assurance Society of Australia Ltd [1969] VR 401
Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioner (1949) 78 CLR 62
Dunn v Ross Lamb Motors [1978] 1 NSWLR 26
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (1964) 112 CLR 125
Jaycar Pty Ltd v Lombardo [2011] NSWCA 284
Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Ltd (2000) 104 FCR 564
Minogue v Williams (2000) 60 ALD 366
Niemann v Electronic Industries Ltd [1978] VR 431
Shaw v State of New South Wales [2012] NSWCA 102
Spencer v Commonwealth [2010] HCA 28; (2010) 241 CLR 118
The Age Company Ltd v Liu [2013] NSWCA 26
Webster v Lampard (1993) 170 CLR 598
Zelden Sewell Henamast Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 56
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Marion Louise Collier (Applicant)
Constable Kate Lancer (First Respondent)
Local Court of New South Wales (Second Respondent)
Magistrate Jan Stevenson (Third Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
I V Knight, Crown Solicitor (First Respondent)
Counsel:
Mrs Collier (self represented)
Ms Baker (solicitor advocate for First Respondent)
File Number(s):13/027475
 Decision under appeal 
Citation:
Collier v NSW Police Service [2012] NSWSC 1525
Date of Decision:
2012-11-29 00:00:00
Before:
Adams J
File Number(s):
12/201151

Judgment

  1. THE COURT: This is an application by Mrs Collier for leave to appeal from…

Continue reading Collier v Lancer (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Collier v Lancer (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 186
Case
[2013] NSWCA 186
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Collier v Lancer (No 2)*, the applicant sought leave to appeal from a summary dismissal of proceedings. The dispute concerned the applicant's attempt to re-agitate issues previously determined in other proceedings, specifically relating to the refusal of leave to withdraw a guilty plea. The matter was heard by Ward and Leeming JJA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether an extension of time should be granted to file the summons seeking leave to appeal, and whether leave to appeal should be granted from the summary dismissal. The Court was required to consider whether the case involved a question of principle, public importance, or circumstances where an injustice had demonstrably occurred due to an error in the judgment, beyond mere arguability.

The Court reasoned that the applicant was seeking to re-litigate matters that had already been decided. Applying the principles governing applications for leave to appeal, particularly concerning the threshold for demonstrating an arguable case of error or injustice, the Court found that the applicant had not met the necessary criteria. While the Court granted an extension of time to file the summons, it ultimately dismissed the summons seeking leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Grant leave to extend the time for filing of the applicant's Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal to 29 January 2013.

2. Dismiss applicant's Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal with costs.

[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.]

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.