Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Fokas v Mansfield (No 3) [2017] NSWCA 315 Hearing dates: 7 December 2017 Date of orders: 07 December 2017 Decision date: 07 December 2017 Before: Basten JA; Meagher JA; Payne JA Decision: (1) The applicant’s notice of motion dated 9 October 2017 for review of the orders made by White JA on 9 October 2017 be dismissed;
(2) The applicant’s notice of motion dated 16 October 2017 for review of the orders made by White JA on 9 October 2017 be dismissed;
(3) The applicant pay the first and third respondents’ costs of the notices of motion dated 9 October 2017 and 16 October 2017 as agreed or assessed.Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Court of Appeal – incompetent appeal – review of order of single judge of appeal dismissing appeal – scope of review under s 101, Supreme Court Act 1970, s 46(4)
CIVIL PROCEDURE – requirement for leave to appeal – construction of Supreme Court Act 1970, s 101 – whether subs (1) granting right of appeal subject to subs (2)Legislation Cited: Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 46(4), 46(2)(b), 101(1)(a), 101(2)(e)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 51.2Cases Cited: Fokas v Mansfield [2017] NSWCA 231
Fokas v Mansfield (No 2) [2017] NSWCA 261
Macatangay v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 272
McGinn v Cranbrook School [2016] NSWCA 226
Pi v Zhou [2017] NSWCA 16
Transglobal Capital Pty Ltd v Yolarno Pty Ltd (2004) 60 NSWLR 143; [2004] NSWCA 136
Tyneside Property Management Pty Ltd v Hammersmith Management Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 417Category: Principal judgment Parties: Maria Fokas (Applicant)
David Ian Mansfield (First Respondent)
Deloitte Pty Limited (Second Respondent)
Australian Financial Security Authority (Third Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
M J Dawson (First Respondent)
Solicitors:
Applicant (in person)
Matthews Folbigg Lawyers (Third Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/00243631 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Court of Appeal
- Citation:
- [2017] NSWCA 231
- Date of Decision:
- 9 October 2017
- Before:
- White JA
- File Number(s):
- 2017/243631
Judgment
-
JUDGMENT of THE COURT delivered by PAYNE JA: This is an application for review under s 46(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) of a decision of White JA delivered on 9 October 2017: Fokas v Mansfield (No 2) [2017] NSWCA 261.
Background
-
The applicant was formerly the registered proprietor of a property in English Street, Kogarah. On 1 November 2012, the Federal Magistrates Court made an order in the following terms:
“1. A Sequestration Order be made against the estate of Maria Fokas.
2. The Applicant Creditor’s costs fixed in the amount of $5,543.12 be paid from the estate of the Respondent Debtor in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966.
The Court notes that the date of the act of bankruptcy is 22 June 2012.”
-
On 14 December 2016, the first respondent, the trustee of the applicant’s bankrupt estate, obtained an order in proceedings brought in the Common Law Division of this Court (2016/213128) for…
Continue reading Fokas v Mansfield (No 3)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Fokas v Mansfield (No 3) [2017] NSWCA 315
- Case
- [2017] NSWCA 315
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were the scope of review available under section 101 of the *Supreme Court Act 1970* (NSW) and the construction of that section, specifically whether subsection (1), which grants a right of appeal, is subject to subsection (2), which requires leave to appeal in certain circumstances. The applicant contended that they had a right of appeal under section 101(1) and that the dismissal of their appeal by White JA was therefore erroneous.
The Court of Appeal held that section 101 of the *Supreme Court Act 1970* requires leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from an order of a single judge of that court, unless the order falls within the exceptions provided in section 101(2). The court found that the orders made by White JA dismissing the applicant's appeal were not of a kind that could be appealed as of right under section 101(1). Consequently, the applicant's application for review of White JA's orders was dismissed.
The applicant's notices of motion for review were dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the first and third respondents' costs of those motions.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The applicant’s notice of motion dated 9 October 2017 for review of the orders made by White JA on 9 October 2017 be dismissed;
(2) The applicant’s notice of motion dated 16 October 2017 for review of the orders made by White JA on 9 October 2017 be dismissed;
(3) The applicant pay the first and third respondents’ costs of the notices of motion dated 9 October 2017 and 16 October 2017 as agreed or assessed.
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.