Ejueyitsi v Thomas & Anor

Case [2022] NSWDC 490


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ejueyitsi v Thomas & Anor [2022] NSWDC 490
Hearing dates: 20 October 2022
Date of orders: 20 October 2022
Decision date: 20 October 2022
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Abadee DCJ
Decision:

See paragraph 101 - 103

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE – appeal from the Small Claims Division of the Local Court – Local Court decision to strike out plaintiff’s claim - application for summary dismissal of appeal proceeding – limited nature of an appeal from decision of the Small Claims Division – whether there was a failure to give reasons

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 56, 57, 58, 98

Local Court Act 2007 (NSW) ss 29, 35, 39

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 13.4,14.28, 18.6

Cases Cited:

Arnoldus-Lewis v Murphy [2008] NSWSC 1103

Eliezer v Sydney Water Corporation [2021] NSWCA 300

Eliezer v Sydney Water Corporation [2021] NSWDC 66

Habra v Reinke [2005] NSWSC 1090

Murphy v Arnoldus-Lewis [2009] NSWCA 142

Saqa v Bainivalu [2005] NSWSC 1091

Stojanovski v Parevski [2004] NSWSC 1194

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Ms J Thomas and Mr B Glover (applicants/defendants)
Mr V Ejueyitsi (respondent/plaintiff)
Representation: Mr E Ball (Counsel) for the applicants/defendants
Mr V Ejueyitsi in person
File Number(s): 2022/00228078
Publication restriction: Nil

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR Judgment

Introduction

  1. Before the Court is an application by the defendants for summary dismissal of the proceeding.

  2. On 8 July 2022 the plaintiff, Mr Ejueyitsi, (who I may also refer to hereafter as the respondent on the application) filed a summons in which he sought to appeal a decision made by the Parramatta Local Court on 10 June 2022 and to have the matter remitted back to the Local Court.

  3. The Local Court’s decision was made in a proceeding in which the respondent commenced a suit against the first defendant, Ms Joy Thomas, an employee of the University of Western Sydney (UWS), in which he claimed the sum of $50,000. The original Statement of Claim in the Local Court (there were subsequent iterations) indicated that he had brought actions for breach of contract and negligence. Mr Barney Glover, the Vice Chancellor of UWS, was added as a second defendant.

  4. On 4 May 2022, Ms Thomas and Mr Glover applied for the summary dismissal or, alternatively, for the striking out of the Amended Statement of Claim in the Local Court. On 10 June 2022, Magistrate Feather decided to strike it out and also ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs as agreed or assessed.

  5. The respondent filed this summons without the assistance of a legal practitioner. Throughout this proceeding the respondent has remained unrepresented.

  6. The defendants, (the applicants on the application) applied for summary dismissal by their notice of motion dated 12 August 2022.

The Local Court proceedings

The last iteration of the statement of claim before the Local Court

  1. This document was apparently filed, or at least prepared, on or about 28 April 2022. In the last iteration of his pleading in the Local Court, the…

Continue reading Ejueyitsi v Thomas & Anor

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ejueyitsi v Thomas & Anor [2022] NSWDC 490
Case
[2022] NSWDC 490
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by the plaintiff against the Local Court's decision to strike out their claim. The plaintiff sought to recover money from the defendants for an alleged breach of contract. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court, which had jurisdiction to review the decision of the Local Court. The defendants opposed the appeal on the basis that it was not within the scope of the court’s powers to review the merits of the case. They argued that the appeal was limited to considering whether the Local Court had failed to give reasons for its decision to strike out the claim.

The court considered the scope of an appeal from the Small Claims Division of the Local Court. It noted that the power of appeal was limited and that the court could only consider whether there was a failure to give reasons for the decision. The court found that the Local Court had provided reasons for its decision and that the plaintiff had not established any error in the decision. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the Local Court had failed to consider the merits of the case. It held that the appeal was limited to considering the reasons for the decision and that the court could not consider the merits of the case on appeal.

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the appeal. The court found that the Local Court had not erred in striking out the plaintiff’s claim and that the appeal was without merit. The court held that the plaintiff had not established any grounds for allowing the appeal and that the decision of the Local Court should be upheld. The court also found that the plaintiff’s application for summary dismissal of the appeal proceeding was without merit and that the appeal should proceed to a hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph 101 - 103

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.