Dubow v Mid-Western Regional Council (No 2)

Case [2021] NSWCA 223


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Dubow v Mid-Western Regional Council (No 2) [2021] NSWCA 223
Hearing dates: On the papers
Decision date: 16 September 2021
Before: Basten JA
Decision:

(1)   Refuse the application for a referral for pro bono assistance.

(2)   Note the agreement to stay the enforcement of the gross costs order pending determination of the application for leave to appeal.

(3)   Otherwise dismiss the notice of motion of 5 August 2021.

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to appeal – stay of enforcement of costs order – referral for pro bono assistance – motion dismissed

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 98

Local Land Services Act 2013 (NSW), Pt 8

Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69

Civil Procedure Regulation 2017 (NSW), cl 12

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 7.36

Cases Cited:

Dubow v Mid-Western Regional Council [2021] NSWSC 767

Dubow v Mid-Western Regional Council 2021 NSWSC 922

Neale v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd [2015] NSWCA 136

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: Yolande Victoria Frances Dubow (Applicant)
Mid-Western Regional Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Applicant self-represented
Ms A Sinclair (Solicitor) (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Applicant self-represented
Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2021/176714
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction:
Common Law
Citation:

[2021] NSWSC 699

Date of Decision:
16 June 2021
Before:
Adamson J
File Number(s):
2019/381044

Judgment

  1. BASTEN JA: On 16 June 2021 Adamson J gave judgment in the Common Law Division dismissing judicial review proceedings brought by the applicant, Yolande Dubow, and requiring her to pay the costs of the respondent Council. [1] On 28 July 2021 she ordered payment of $70,000 by way of a gross costs order. [2]

  2. On 5 August 2021 the applicant filed a summons seeking leave to appeal from the orders made on 16 June 2021. She also filed a notice of motion seeking a number of orders. The motion came before this Court on 9 August 2021, at which stage the primary order sought was a stay of enforcement of the costs order. The respondent appeared on short notice by its solicitor, but she had not had an opportunity to obtain instructions as to the respondent’s position with respect to the stay. The motion was stood over to allow the respondent to consider the application.

  3. On 16 August a stay was granted by consent.

  4. On 23 August directions were given for service of submissions with respect to the remaining orders sought in the motion, together with a direction that the matter be referred to a judge in chambers for consideration of whether it could be determined on the papers.

  5. Although the directions included the possibility of a reply, which was to be filed by 27 August 2021, no reply was filed. Further, the parties had indicated to the Registrar that they were content for the matter to…

Continue reading Dubow v Mid-Western Regional Council (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dubow v Mid-Western Regional Council (No 2) [2021] NSWCA 223
Case
[2021] NSWCA 223
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Dubow, sought leave to appeal and a stay of enforcement of a costs order made by the primary judge against him in favour of the respondent, Mid-Western Regional Council. The application was brought before Basten JA of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether to grant the applicant leave to appeal the costs order and whether to refer the matter for pro bono assistance. The applicant also sought a stay of the enforcement of the costs order pending the determination of his application for leave to appeal.

Basten JA refused the application for a referral for pro bono assistance, noting that such referrals were typically made in circumstances where the applicant had demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success on appeal, which was not evident in this instance. His Honour also noted an agreement between the parties to stay the enforcement of the gross costs order until the application for leave to appeal was determined. The notice of motion filed by the applicant on 5 August 2021 was otherwise dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Refuse the application for a referral for pro bono assistance.

(2) Note the agreement to stay the enforcement of the gross costs order pending determination of the application for leave to appeal.

(3) Otherwise dismiss the notice of motion of 5 August 2021.

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.