Curtis v Charles Darwin University

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Curtis v Charles Darwin University [2013] NSWSC 1558

Hearing dates:

18/10/13

Decision date:

18 October 2013

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

Campbell J

Decision:

1. Direct the plaintiff to file a Notice of Motion seeking an extension of time to bring his appeal under r. 50.3 of the UCPR together with an affidavit in support of the motion within 14 days of the date hereof;

2. I direct that the motion be endorsed that it is to be made returnable on a date fixed for hearing of the appeal by my direction;

3. Direct the defendant to file any evidence in response within a further period of 7 days from the date of the service of the plaintiff affidavit;

4. Grant liberty to the parties to approach the listing manager today to obtain a date for hearing of the appeal;

5. Direct the parties to submit to my chambers a proposed timetable for any outstanding preparations;

6. If I am satisfied with the provisions they suggest I will make the orders in chambers;

7. The defendant's costs of today to be it's costs in the appeal;

8. Note that the plaintiff's application for a stay of the costs order below is withdrawn.

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for leave to file a motion extending time to file a notice of appeal from a decision of the Local Court of New South Wales

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Local Court Act 2007 (NSW)

Category:

Procedural and other rulings

Parties:

John P. Curtis (plaintiff)
Charles Darwin University (defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
In person (plaintiff)
CM Riorden, solicitor (defendant)
Solicitors:
In person (plaintiff)
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (defendant)

File Number(s):

2013/00286853

ex tempore Judgment

1. This is an appeal from the Local Court brought as of a right under the provisions of s 39 of the Local Court Act 2007 (NSW). The gravamen of the complaints of Mr Curtis, who is unrepresented, is that he was denied a fair hearing in the Local Court and that the Magistrate was biased but refused to recuse himself. It seems to me - and Mr Riorden, solicitor, who appears for the defendant seems to accept that - those matters, if made good, will constitute errors of law.

1. The Common Law Case Management Registrar referred the matter to me because the parties were in dispute about whether Mr Curtis's notice of appeal was in order. There is no doubt it was filed late, and in the grounds in support of the appeal Mr Curtis sets out a short explanation as to why he was late. Apparently when the matter was before the Registrar on 3rd October 2013 there was a dispute about the same matter, and a direction was made that Mr Curtis file an amended summons. Unfortunately, apparently it was not clear to Mr Curtis what the alleged defect was, and accordingly he did not comply.

1. The parties are in dispute today as to whether or not the Registrar…