Croker v Challoner

CITATION:	CROKER v. CHALLONER [2000] NSWCA 342
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA CA 40798/99
HEARING DATE(S):	23/11/00
JUDGMENT DATE:	23 November 2000
PARTIES :	CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER (Claimant) GEORGE CHALLONER (Opponent)
JUDGMENT OF:	Mason P at 1; Powell JA at 2; Fitzgerald JA at 32

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :	Court of Appeal - Single Judge of Appeal
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :	DC 9108/99; CA 40798/99
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Giles JA

COUNSEL:	Claimant in person R.S. Sheldon (Opponent)
SOLICITORS:	Claimant in person Abbott Tout (Opponent)
CATCHWORDS:	PRACTICE - Court of Appeal - Review of decision of single judge of appeal - Nature of hearing - Decision must be clearly wrong - No question of principle ND
DECISION:	Motion dismissed

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL

CA 40798/99
DC 9108/98

MASON P
POWELL JA
FITZGERALD JA

23 November 2000

CROKER v. CHALLONER

JUDGMENT

1    MASON P: I agree with Powell JA

2    POWELL JA: By Notice of Motion filed by him on 3 August 2000 the Claimant, Mr. Croker, seeks to have this Court review a Judgment delivered, and orders made, in these proceedings by Giles JA on 20 July 2000.

3    On that day, there had been listed for hearing before his Honour a Notice of Motion filed by Mr. Croker on 18 May 2000, in which Notice of Motion Mr. Croker sought to have the Court review a direction given by Mr. Registrar Irwin on 11 May 2000 to the effect that Mr. Croker provide an address for service which complied with the provisions of SCR Pt 9 r 6, and a Notice of Motion filed on 14 June 2000 on behalf of the Opponent, Dr. Challoner, seeking to have the Notice of Appeal which had been filed by Mr. Croker on 10 December 1999 struck out on a number of grounds, including that - as it clearly had been - it had been filed out of time. As Giles JA noted in his Judgment, by consent, on the hearing of the Notices of Motion he also entertained an oral application, made by Mr. Croker, for an order extending the time for lodging a Notice of Appeal.

4    The appeal which, by his Notice of Appeal, Mr. Croker had sought to institute, and which he seeks to maintain, in these proceedings relates to orders made by Sinclair A-DCJ on 6 August 1999 in proceedings DC 9108/98 which he had commenced in the District Court with the filing of an Ordinary Statement of Claim on 15 December 1998.

5    As best as one can judge it, in those proceedings Mr. Croker sought to recover from Dr. Challoner, a dentist, what appear to be damages which he quantified in the sum of $100,000.00. Despite the fact that, in September 1999, Mr. Croker claimed to be a "student at law, Sydney Institute of Technology", the form of that Statement of Claim demonstrates clearly that Mr. Croker has little, if any, acquaintance with, or understanding of, proper litigious…