Hanna v Registrar of the Court of Appeal of NSW and the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW

[2006] NSWSC 564

CITATION:	Hanna v Registrar of the Court of Appeal of NSW and the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW [2006] NSWSC 564
HEARING DATE(S):	8 May 2006
JUDGMENT DATE :	8 May 2006
JURISDICTION:	Civil
JUDGMENT OF:	McClellan CJatCL
DECISION:	Application for review of the Registrar's decision dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE REGISTRAR - notice of appeal declined by the registry - requirement to provide an address for service to the court - requirement to pay a fee - whether post office box sufficient as an address for service - whether fee should have been waived
LEGISLATION CITED:	Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
CASES CITED:	Sarikaya v Victorian Workcover Authority (1997) 80 FCR 262
PARTIES:	Fayez Philippe Hanna (Pltf) Registrar of Court of Appeal Prothonotary of the Supreme Court
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 13202/05
COUNSEL:	Plaintiff in person Submitting appearance for 1D and 2D
SOLICITORS:	Plaintiff in person Submitting appearance for 1D and 2D
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:	Supreme Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):	13202/05
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Malpass AsJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:	5 April 2006
LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	Hanna v University of New England & Ors [2006] NSWSC 122

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

McCLELLAN CJ at CL

MONDAY 8 MAY 2006

13202/05 HANNA v REGISTRAR OF COURT OF APPEAL & ANOR

JUDGMENT – appeal of decision of Registrar Riznyczok

1 HIS HONOUR: This matter comes before me on the application of Mr Hanna. Mr Hanna has commenced proceedings against the University of New England and others claiming various forms of relief. The proceedings arise from his experience as a law student of the university. Associate Justice Malpass heard a motion that the proceedings be dismissed. His Honour upheld that motion in many respects, although he stood over the relief sought in para 12 of the amended summons generally and reserved the costs of that aspect of the matter.

2 Mr Hanna seeks to appeal the decision of Associate Justice Malpass to the Court of Appeal. He has attempted to file a Notice of Appeal in the Registry but it has been declined. The decision by the Registry staff to decline his appeal was reviewed before Registrar Riznyczok. The Registrar confirmed the decision which had previously been made. Registrar Riznyczok's decision was expressed to be a decision in relation to an application for the waiving of a filing fee for a holding appeal.

3 The Registrar determined that because the decision of the Associate Judge was interlocutory rather than having a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal Mr Hanna required leave.

4 He further determined that having regard to the income disclosed in Mr Hanna's household he would not waive the fee being of the view that Mr Hanna had adequate resources to either pay the sum of $232 dollars in full or by instalments.

5 He also formed the view that because Mr Hanna had failed to disclose his residential address and merely specified a Post Office box as an address for service the document which Mr Hanna wished to file could not be accepted.

6 As I understand the position, Associate Justice Malpass has dismissed various parts of Mr Hanna's summons. Those orders would appear to be final orders and, accordingly, an appeal as of right, subject to the question of the quantum, would seem to be available.

7 It seems to me that at least it is arguable that Mr Hanna has an appeal of right and I would not see this as a reason for rejecting his Notice of Appeal or, as I understand it, the filing of a holding appeal. However, the other two matters are of greater substance.

8 Pt 4 r 4.5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules provides for a person to give an address for service. That address must be:

“The address of a place in New South Wales (other than a DX address):

(a) at which documents in the proceedings may be left for the person during ordinary business hours, and
(b) to which documents in the proceedings may be posted for the person.”

9 There is authority in the Federal Court in Sarikaya v Victorian Workcover Authority (1997) 80 FCR 262 to the effect that a rule in this form requires a party to nominate a place and a Post Office box will not be sufficient.

10 With respect, that decision in my opinion is an appropriate construction of the rule. A Post Office box could not be described as a place, nor as a place where documents are left, although it is undoubtedly an address to which documents may be posted. It does not, in my opinion, meet the description required to be provided of an address for service within the meaning of the rule.

11 Mr Hanna has suggested that he is concerned about others learning of his residential address and, accordingly, he does not wish to provide it to the Court. These concerns, although articulated, are not supported by any substantial evidence. In my opinion, there is nothing before the Court which would persuade me, if I had the power, to intervene to waive the requirement for an appropriate address for service to be given.

12 The Registrar also found that having regard to the household income of Mr Hanna he was not prepared to waive the fee. Having regard to the income level which Mr Hanna disclosed, I am satisfied that the Registrar's decision was appropriate. Even if I had the power to intervene in relation to this administrative matter I would not do so.

13 Accordingly, the application for review of the Registrar's decision must be dismissed.

**********