Hollingsworth v Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, New South Wales

[2014] NSWCA 220

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

Hollingsworth v Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, New South Wales [2014] NSWCA 220

Hearing dates:

7 July 2014

Decision date:

07 July 2014

Before:

Barrett JA

Decision:

Back to top

Notice of motion 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:

PROCEDURE - application for prerogative relief in respect of a decision of the District Court on appeal from the Local Court - applicant convicted of offences under legislation concerning cruelty to animals - ancillary orders placed horses in the possession of the respondent - appeal to District Court dismissed - applicant seeks interlocutory order preserving horses - no articulation of any basis on which principal relief might be granted - interlocutory relief refused

Legislation Cited:

District Court Act 1973 (NSW)
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Downey v Acting District Court Judge Boulton (No 5) [2010] NSWCA 240; 78 NSWLR 499

Category:

Interlocutory applications

Parties:

Kim Hollingsworth - Applicant
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, New South Wales - Respondent

Representation:

Counsel:
Applicant self-represented
A L Campbell (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Applicant self-represented
Hunt & Hunt (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2014/200247

Judgment

1. Ms Hollingsworth has filed in court today by leave a summons by which she seeks to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) in respect of a decision of the District Court on an appeal from the Local Court.

1. The proceedings in the Local Court were brought under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act1979 (NSW).

1. Ms Hollingsworth was charged with eleven statutory offences relating to horses owned by her or in her care. She initially entered a plea of not guilty but eventually pleaded guilty and was convicted.

1. The Local Court made ancillary orders under the legislation placing the relevant horses in the custody of the respondent and enabling it to dispose of them.

1. Ms Hollingsworth's appeal to the District Court was dismissed by his Honour Judge Neilson on 20 June 2014.

1. In her summons filed in court today and the accompanying affidavit, Ms Hollingsworth does not identify the grounds on which relief in the exercise of the Supreme Court's supervisory jurisdiction is sought in relation to the decision of the District Court. In the section of the summons where grounds are to be set out there appears merely "Judicial Review Proceeding". I invited Ms Hollingsworth to identify the error or errors of law by which the District Court decision is affected but she did not do so.

1. There is thus no articulation of alleged error of law on the part of the District Court. That being so, this Court is simply not in a position to see any arguable case for the making of orders in the supervisory jurisdiction, particularly if s 176 of the District Court Act 1973 (NSW) applies to the ancillary orders made in the proceedings in which Ms Hollingswoth was prosecuted in the Local Court: Downey v Acting District Court Judge Boulton (No 5) [2010] NSWCA 240; 78 NSWLR 499.

1. Ms Hollingsworth's immediate purpose today was to move on a notice of motion also filed in court by which she sought an order staying the ancillary orders of the Local Court or in some other way ensuring that the horses now in the possession of the respondent are not disposed of but are retained, as it were, intact pending the determination of her substantive proceeding.

1. Because the Court is in no position to come to any view that there are prospects that the final relief Ms Hollingsworth seeks will be granted, it is likewise in no position to come to a positive view on the question whether the horses should be retained intact pending determination of the proceedings.

1. In those circumstances the notice of motion is dismissed.

[Submissions on costs]

1. It is dismissed with costs.

**********

Amendments

11 July 2014 - Typo

Amended paragraphs: Under "Counsel"

Decision last updated: 11 July 2014