Fire & Rescue NSW v Clinen

Case [2013] NSWSC 609

Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Attorney-General v Altaranesi [2013] NSWSC 609
Hearing dates:21 May 2013
Decision date: 21 May 2013
Jurisdiction:Common Law
Before: Davies J
Decision:

(1) Vary the order made by Slattery J on 15 February 2013 to add the following order in addition to the existing orders made by his Honour:

(5) The Defendant may continue to conduct the proceedings in the Workers Compensation Commission identified as Matter Number 8742/12 up to judgment or other resolution at first instance.

Catchwords: PROCEDURE - judgments - variation of - no point of principle.
Legislation Cited: Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008
Cases Cited: Attorney General v Tareq Altaranesi [2013] NSWSC 63
Category:Interlocutory applications
Parties: Attorney-General of NSW (Plaintiff)
Tareq Altaranesi (Defendant)
Representation:
Solicitors:
D Galbraith, Crown Solicitors Office (Plaintiff)
F Fagan, Santone Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number(s):2012/126206

Judgment

  1. On 15 February 2013 Slattery J made an order under section 8 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 against the Defendant. That order had the effect of staying a number of proceedings that were commenced by the present Defendant against various Defendants.

  1. Justice Slattery noted in paragraph 3 of his reasons for judgment that the proceedings all seemed to have arisen because of the perception by the Defendant of injustice arising from a workplace incident in March 2008. The Workers Compensation Proceedings relate to that injury.

  1. The Workers Compensation Proceedings were not brought to Slattery J's attention by either party. I am told that searches were done by the Crown Solicitor of proceedings commenced by the Defendant but that the Workers Compensation Proceedings were not found.

  1. The Defendant was acting for himself when the proceedings were before Slattery J, but he did not bring the Workers Compensation Proceedings to the judge's attention.

  1. The Defendant is now legally represented and seeks a variation of Slattery J's order in these terms,

That the Defendant may continue to conduct the proceedings in the Workers Compensation Commission identified as matter 8742/12 up to judgment or other resolution in this instance.

  1. That order is not opposed by the Attorney General. It is appropriate that it should be made.

  1. The Defendant seeks costs of the Motion on the basis that the Crown's search of proceedings in respect of which the vexatious proceedings order would be made, did not locate the Workers Compensation Proceedings and that that necessitated the bringing of the present Motion.

  1. In circumstances where the Defendant was aware of the existence of those proceedings, and it would seem to have formed the very basis of all of the proceedings that he had subsequently commenced which ultimately led to the making of the Vexatious Proceedings order, it does not seem appropriate that there should be any costs order against the Attorney General in that regard. The oversight was unfortunate on both sides.

  1. In those circumstances there should be no order for costs on the Motion. I make an order in terms of paragraph 1 of the Notice Motion filed 14 May 2013.

**********

Details
AGLC
Attorney-General v Altaranesi [2013] NSWSC 609
Case
[2013] NSWSC 609
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Fire & Rescue NSW v Clinen, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was asked to consider an application to vary a judgment that had been made by the Tribunal in an earlier proceeding. The applicant, Fire & Rescue NSW, sought to amend the original judgment to include additional relief that had not been previously considered. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the application met the necessary criteria for varying a judgment and whether the application involved a point of principle that warranted consideration beyond the ordinary process for varying judgments.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the application to vary the judgment constituted a case where a point of principle was involved, which would require the Tribunal to consider the application on its merits rather than simply proceeding on an administrative basis. The Tribunal needed to determine if the application presented a novel or complex issue of law or fact that went beyond the ordinary process of varying a judgment. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider the appropriate procedure for handling such an application, particularly in light of the CAT's practice and procedure rules.

The Tribunal found that the application did not involve a point of principle. The relief sought by Fire & Rescue NSW was not of a nature that required the Tribunal to consider the application on its merits. Instead, the application fell within the ordinary process for varying judgments, as set out in the relevant practice and procedure rules. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to proceed with the application in accordance with the established procedures for varying judgments. The Tribunal granted the application to vary the judgment, incorporating the additional relief sought by Fire & Rescue NSW.

As a result of the Tribunal's decision, the original judgment was varied to include the additional relief as requested by the applicant. The Tribunal's ruling confirmed that the application was appropriately handled under the ordinary process for varying judgments, without the need to consider any points of principle.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.