IA v TA (No 2)

[2016] NSWCA 349

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	IA v TA (No 2) [2016] NSWCA 349
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Date of orders:	13 December 2016
Decision date:	13 December 2016
Before:	Ward JA; Payne JA; Sackville AJA.
Decision:	The amended notice of motion filed 31 October 2016 is dismissed as incompetent.
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – appeal determined – notice of motion seeking further relief – whether appeal finally determined – whether notice of motion incompetent
Legislation Cited:	NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 (NSW) s 41 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 7.14, 36.16
Cases Cited:	A v A [2015] NSWSC 1778 A v A [2016] NSWCA 17 Carelli v FS Architects Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 205 IA v TA [2016] NSWCA 179 Rockcote Enterprises Pty Ltd v FS Architects Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2)  Tanious v South Eastern Sydney Local Health District [2016] NSWCA 83
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	IA (applicant) TA (respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: IA (self represented) Mr Hanna (respondent)   Solicitors: IA (self represented) Moray & Agnew (respondent)
File Number(s):	2015/242864
Publication restriction:	Party names suppressed

Judgment

1. THE COURT: This matter has a long and unhappy history. Most recently in this Court Mr IA succeeded in an appeal from orders which had been made by Lindsay J in separate proceedings in the Equity Division and the Common Law Division: IA v TA [2016] NSWCA 179. That judgment was delivered on 29 July 2016. The matter was remitted to the Equity Division.

2. Notwithstanding that success, on 24 October 2016 the applicant filed a notice of motion in this Court seeking extensive additional relief. On 31 October 2016, the applicant filed an amended notice of motion seeking even more extensive additional relief.

3. Given the history of this matter the Court made orders for the exchange of written submissions directed to the question of whether, as the respondent to the motion submitted, the motion was incompetent. The Court convened a panel of three judges to address the amended motion on the papers.

4. For the reasons which follow the amended notice of motion is dismissed as incompetent.

Background and procedural history

5. The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 2 July 2007 and suffered neck and head injuries. He commenced proceedings against TA (the respondent to these proceedings) on 26 February 2009 in the District Court.

6. The respondent has admitted liability for the accident and his insurer has made substantial interim payments of compensation to the applicant. The District Court proceedings to assess damages, however, have not progressed very far. The District Court proceedings were listed for hearing on 22 November 2010 and 20 May 2013, but were adjourned on both occasions at the applicant’s request. As a result, the matter became subject to case management in the District Court. On 1 and 18 December 2014, a hearing took place before her Honour Judge Norton SC in the District Court on the applicant’s motion seeking an advance interim payment…