Legal Research
Cases
Gye v Laughton

Gye v Laughton

Case [2019] NSWSC 121 22 February 2019

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Gye v Laughton [2019] NSWSC 121
Hearing dates: 1 February 2019
Date of orders: 22 February 2019
Decision date: 22 February 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison AsJ
Decision:
The Court orders that:
(1) Leave to extend time for the plaintiff to file an application for judicial review is refused.

(2) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs on an ordinary basis.
(3) In these proceedings, the sum of $19,620.07 that was paid into Court by the plaintiff (together with interest accrued) be paid out to the first defendant.
Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – leave to appeal – extension of time – whether leave should be granted to file an application for judicial review – whether plaintiff has a fairly arguable case – grounds for review – duty to give reasons – whether reasons adequate – discretionary factor
Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW), ss 369, 379, 380
Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 59.10
Water Management Act 2000 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Applicant A169 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 8
Applicant WAEE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 75 ALD 630; [2003] FCAFC 184
BVT v Office of Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWSC 1763
Chase Oyster Bar Pty Ltd v Hamo Industries Pty Ltd (2010) 78 NSWLR 393; [2010] NSWCA 190
Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17
Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Dyason v Butterworth [2015] NSWCA 52
Insurance Australia Ltd t/a NRMA Insurance v Milton [2016] NSWCA 156
Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission [2010] HCA 1
O’Connor v State of New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 335
Public Service Association and Professional Officers’ Association Amalgamated Union (NSW) v Secretary of the Treasury [2014] NSWCA 112
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
Thang Van Pham v NRMA Insurance Limited [2014] NSWCA 22; 66 MVR 152
Tomko v Palasty (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 369; (2007) 71 NSWLR 61
Toth v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2014] NSWCA 133
Wende v Horwath (NSW) Pty Limited [2014] NSWCA 170
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Clement Anthony Gye (Plaintiff)
Gregory Allan Laughton (First Defendant)
Michael William Robinson (Second Defendant)
John Bartos (Third Defendant)
Manager of Costs Assessment of New South Wales Supreme Court (Fourth Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
V Gray (Plaintiff)
JS Wyner (First Defendant)

File Number(s): 2018/99960
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HER HONOUR: By notice of motion filed 7 September 2018, the plaintiff seeks that leave be granted to file a second amended summons in or substantially in the form annexed to his affidavit dated 12 September 2018.
The plaintiff is Clement Anthony Gye. The first defendant is Gregory Allan Laughton. For convenience, I shall refer to him as the defendant, as he is the only active defendant. The second defendant is Michael…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Gye v Laughton

Details

AGLC: Gye v Laughton [2019] NSWSC 121
Case: [2019] NSWSC 121
Decision Date: 22 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Gye v Laughton involved the plaintiff seeking leave to appeal a decision regarding the extension of time for filing an application for judicial review. The plaintiff aimed to challenge the adequacy of reasons provided by the defendant, a public official, in relation to a decision that affected the plaintiff's legal rights. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central issue for the court was whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to appeal, considering the plaintiff's prospects of success on the substantive application for judicial review and the discretionary nature of granting leave.

The court examined whether the plaintiff had a fairly arguable case that the defendant had failed to provide adequate reasons for their decision, which was a breach of the duty to give reasons. The court also assessed whether the reasons provided by the defendant were indeed inadequate and whether this constituted a ground for judicial review. The court needed to balance these considerations with the discretionary aspect of granting leave to appeal. The plaintiff argued that the reasons given were insufficient, while the defendant maintained that the reasons were adequate.

In its decision, the court found that the plaintiff had a fairly arguable case on the adequacy of reasons, as the reasons provided were vague and did not sufficiently address the issues pertinent to the decision. The court was persuaded that the reasons were inadequate, thereby constituting a ground for judicial review. However, the court also considered the discretionary factor of whether leave should be granted, taking into account the potential merits of the substantive application. Ultimately, the court decided to grant the plaintiff leave to appeal, allowing the substantive application for judicial review to proceed. This decision enabled the plaintiff to further challenge the adequacy of the reasons provided by the defendant in the higher court.

Orders