Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Geftlic v Merhi & Ors [2011] NSWCA 241 Hearing dates: 6 July 2011 Decision date: 25 August 2011 Before: Giles JA at [1], Young JA at [22], Handley AJA at [27] Decision: Application dismissed with costs.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords: JUDICIAL REVIEW - application for certiorari - respondent brought proceedings in Local Court - assessor gave judgment in favour of respondent - applicant appealed to District Court on grounds of jurisdictional error and denial of procedural fairness - appeal dismissed - no relief in relation to Local Court proceedings when relying on same grounds as those in unsuccessful appeal to District Court - (per Giles JA) relief refused as matter of discretion - (per Handley AJA, Young JA agreeing) decision of District Court created binding issue estoppels - no relief in relation to District Court proceedings - (per curiam) no jurisdictional error or error of law on the face of the record. Cases Cited: Craig v The State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163;
Hockey v Yelland [1984] HCA 72, (1984) 157 CLR 124;
Jackson v Goldsmith [1950] HCA 22, 81 CLR 446;
Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales [2010] HCA 1; (2010) 239 CLR 1;
Marginson v Blackburn BC [1939] 2 KB 426 CA, 438;
Meagher v Stevenson (1993) 40 NSWLR 736;
Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd v Industrial Court of New South Wales [2009] NSWCA 434; (2008) 263 ALR 556;
Ramsey v Pigram [1968] HCA 34; (1968)118 CLR 271;
Watt (formerly Carter) v Ahsan [2007] UKHL 51, [2008] 1 AC 696;
Wishart v Fraser (1941) 64 CLR 470.Texts Cited: Wade & Forsyth, Administrative Law, 9th ed (Oxford University Press, 2004) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Layla Hassan Geftlic - Applicant
Mariam Merhi - First Respondent
Local Court of New South Wales - Second Respondent
District Court of New South Wales - Third RespondentRepresentation: Applicant in person (assisted by J M Patel)
U Coustas (Solicitor) - First Respondent
Submitting appearances - Second and Third Respondents
Applicant in person
Lexington Law Group Pty Ltd - First Respondent
I V Knight, Crown Solicitor - Second and Third Respondents
File Number(s): CA 2010/337205 Decision under appeal
- Citation:
- Geftlic v Merhi (Garling DCJ, 14 August 2009, unreported)
- Date of Decision:
- 2009-08-14 00:00:00
- Before:
- Garling DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 1175/09
Judgment
GILES JA : This is an application for relief in the nature of certiorari. The applicant claims orders quashing a decision in the Small Claims Division of the Local Court…
Continue reading Geftlic v Merhi
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Geftlic v Merhi [2011] NSWCA 241
- Case
- [2011] NSWCA 241
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the District Court had erred in dismissing the applicant's appeal from the Local Court, and whether the applicant was entitled to relief in relation to either the Local Court or District Court proceedings. Specifically, the court had to consider whether there had been jurisdictional error or an error of law on the face of the record, and whether the District Court's decision created a binding issue estoppel.
The Court of Appeal, comprising Giles and Young JJA and Handley AJA, dismissed the application. The majority (Handley AJA and Young JA) found that the District Court's decision created a binding issue estoppel, preventing the applicant from relitigating the same grounds that had been unsuccessfully raised in the appeal to the District Court. Giles JA, in addition, refused relief as a matter of discretion. The court unanimously concluded that there was no jurisdictional error or error of law on the face of the record.
Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application dismissed with costs.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
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.