Hollingsworth v Bushby

Link copied
Case Copied 46 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Summary available
  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Hollingsworth v Bushby [2015] NSWCA 251
Hearing dates:4 June 2015
Decision date: 25 August 2015
Before: Basten JA at [1];
Macfarlan JA at [40];
Leeming JA at [89]
Decision:

(1)   Dismiss the summons seeking review of the judgments of the District Court given on 16 May 2014 and 20 June 2014.

 (2)   Order the applicant to pay the respondents’ costs in this Court.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – applicant charged in Local Court with offences under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (NSW) relating to horses owned by her or in her care – initial pleas of not guilty changed to guilty – Magistrate subsequently refused leave to withdraw guilty pleas and convicted applicant – applicant sought leave to appeal to District Court against convictions contending that she should be given leave to withdraw the guilty pleas – District Court refused to permit applicant to give evidence following non-compliance with pre-hearing directions – whether applicant denied procedural fairness – whether jurisdictional error occurred – by majority application dismissed
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 58
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), ss 11, 12, 18, 19
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 10A
District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 176
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (NSW), ss 5, 8, 30A, 31
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69
Cases Cited: Aon Risk Services Australia v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; 239 CLR 175
Garde v Dowd [2011] NSWCA 115; 80 NSWLR 620
Katter v Melhem [2015] NSWCA 213
Kim Hollingsworth v Bushby (RSPCA) [2014] NSWDC 101
Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132
Michael Wilson & Partners v Nicholls [2011] HCA 48; 244 CLR 427
Minister for Immigration v Bhardwaj [2002] HCA 11; 209 CLR 597
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18; 249 CLR 332
Mulder v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2015] NSWCA 92
R v Rae (No 2) [2005] NSWCCA 380; 157 A Crim R 182
R v Wilkinson No 4 [2009] NSWSC 323; 195 A Crim R 20
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex Parte Lam [2003] HCA 6; 214 CLR 1
Reznitsky v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2014] NSWCA 79
Stead v State Government Insurance Commission [1986] HCA 54; 161 CLR 141
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Kim Hollingsworth (Applicant)
Gillian Bushby (First Respondent)
District Court of New South Wales (Second Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Self-represented (Applicant)
R F Sutherland SC/M Castle (First Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Self-represented (Applicant)
Hunt & Hunt (First Respondent)
File Number(s):CA 2014/200247
 Decision under review 
Court or tribunal:
District Court
Citation:
Kim Hollingsworth v Bushby (RSPCA) [2014] NSWDC 101
Date of Decision:
16 May 2014
Before:
Neilson DCJ
File Number(s):
2012/300709

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

The first respondent, acting on behalf of…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hollingsworth v Bushby and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2015] NSWCA 251
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Ms. Hollingsworth, faced charges under the *Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979* (NSW) concerning horses in her ownership or care. After initially pleading not guilty, she changed her pleas to guilty. Subsequently, the Magistrate refused her leave to withdraw these guilty pleas, leading to her conviction. Ms. Hollingsworth then sought leave to appeal to the District Court against these convictions, arguing she should have been permitted to withdraw her guilty pleas. The District Court refused to allow her to give evidence due to non-compliance with pre-hearing directions, and ultimately refused leave to appeal. This decision was then the subject of judicial review in the Court of Appeal.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the District Court had denied the applicant procedural fairness by refusing to permit her to give evidence, and whether this refusal constituted a jurisdictional error. The applicant contended that the District Court’s procedural ruling prevented her from presenting her case for leave to withdraw her guilty pleas, thereby vitiating the decision.

By majority, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application for judicial review. The majority found that the District Court's refusal to permit the applicant to give evidence, while a significant procedural step, did not amount to a jurisdictional error. They reasoned that the District Court had acted within its powers in managing its own proceedings and enforcing its directions. The applicant's non-compliance with pre-hearing directions was a critical factor in this assessment. The Court concluded that the District Court's decision, though potentially harsh, did not involve an error of law that would warrant intervention by way of judicial review.

The summons seeking review of the District Court's judgments was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents’ costs in the Court of Appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Dismiss the summons seeking review of the judgments of the District Court given on 16 May 2014 and 20 June 2014.

(2) Order the applicant to pay the respondents’ costs in this Court.

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.