Haley v Daire

[2025] NSWCA 38

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Haley v Daire [2025] NSWCA 38

Hearing dates:

10 March 2025

Date of orders:

14 March 2025

Decision date:

14 March 2025

Before:

Stern JA

Decision:

(1)   Notice of Motion filed by the applicant on 3 December 2024 dismissed.

(2)   Applicant to pay the respondents’ costs of the motion.

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE - Court of Appeal - Judges of Appeal - Powers of - Power of single Judge of Appeal - Whether orders sought by motion are orders that could be properly made by a single Judge of Appeal

Legislation Cited:

Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 46

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 31.16A

Cases Cited:

Daire v Haley (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 161

Neale v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd [2015] NSWCA 136

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Thomas Murray Haley (Applicant)
Kimberley Jane Daire (First Respondent)
Nikki Ann Daire (Second Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
Litigant in person (Applicant)
T K Egan (Respondents)

Solicitors:
Robinson Gill Lawyers (Respondents)

File Number(s):

2024/00450386

Publication restriction:

Nil

JUDGMENT

1. By orders of 27 February 2024 (corrected under the slip rule on 5 March 2024) Peden J entered judgment for possession of a property described by Folio Identifier Number 96/849197 sand located at 10 Graham Street, Moama, New South Wales (the Property), in favour of Kimberley Jane Daire and Nikki Ann Daire (the respondents): Daire v Haley (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 161. Her Honour also directed Thomas Murray Haley (the applicant) to withdraw caveat AR284250 over the Property within seven days. A writ of execution authorising entry by the Sheriff onto the Property was issued on 30 May 2024. On 24 September 2024 the respondents entered into a contract of sale for the Property, which completed on 9 October 2024.

2. The respondents are the applicant’s daughters.

3. By summons issued 3 December 2024 the applicant seeks leave to appeal against those orders of Peden J.

4. Also on 3 December 2024, the applicant filed a notice of motion seeking 17 orders (the Motion). In written submissions filed by the applicant on 7 March 2025, he added a further five orders to those he had sought in the Motion. The orders sought in the Motion, as supplemented by those sought in the submissions, ranged from asking this Court to order that the respondents be held in police custody to asking that the judgment of Peden J referred to above be declared “NULL & VOID”. During the course of the hearing before me on 10 March 2025 the applicant, who was representing himself, clarified that the substance of what he was actually asking this Court to order was that:

1. the contents of the Property, which he says was sold together with the Property, be returned to him;

2. documents which were stolen from the Property and from 4 Stirling Court, Moama, and then published, be returned to him;

3. the respondents be required to explain why they loosened the front left hand wheel nuts on a 2004 Magna…