Geftlic v Merhi

Case [2011] NSWCA 241


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 Respondent
Representation: 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

  1. 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

Details
AGLC
Geftlic v Merhi [2011] NSWCA 241
Case
[2011] NSWCA 241
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Geftlic v Merhi concerned an application for judicial review by way of certiorari. The applicant sought to challenge a decision of the Local Court in favour of the respondent, which had been upheld on appeal to the District Court. The applicant's grounds for challenging both the Local Court and District Court decisions were jurisdictional error and denial of procedural fairness.

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.