District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Kishore v Transit Systems West Pty Ltd [2022] NSWDC 93 Hearing dates: 31 March 2022 Date of orders: 31 March 2022 Decision date: 31 March 2022 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Judge Levy SC Decision: 1. The plaintiff’s summons filed on 9 February 2022 is dismissed;
2. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of the dismissed summons;
3. With the consent of the parties the basis and the extent of the costs referred to in Order 2 are to be determined on the papers following consideration of written submissions on costs which are to be completed by the parties within 7 days.
Catchwords: APPEAL FROM LOCAL COURT – summons seeking leave to appeal from decision of Small Claims Division – rejection of claim of lack of jurisdiction – rejection of claim of denial of procedural fairness – summons dismissed
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 35, s 56 to s 58
Local Court Act 2007 (NSW), s 36, s 39
Cases Cited: Eliezer v The Council of St Andrew's Cathedral School [2021] NSWCA 144
National Companies and Securities Commission v News Corporation Ltd (1984) 156 CLR 296; [1984] HCA 29
Strbak v Newton (NSWCA, unreported 18 July 1989)
Tonab Investments Pty Ltd v Optima Developments Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 287
Xuereb v Viola [1989] 18 NSWLR 453
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Chandra Kishore (Plaintiff)
Transit Systems West Pty Ltd (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Ms J Kishore, solicitor (Plaintiff)
Mr C Micali (Defendant)
A&J Montgomery Legal (Plaintiff)
Kemp & Co Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2022/38072 Publication restriction: None
Judgment
Summons
-
By summons filed on 9 February 2022, the plaintiff, Mr Chandra Kishore, seeks to appeal a decision made by the Small Claims Division of the Local Court on 12 January 2022. He is dissatisfied with that decision. In those proceedings, the defendant, Transit Systems West Pty Ltd, obtained a judgment against the plaintiff in the sum of $3168.96 as compensation for negligent damage to its bus in a road accident involving the parties on 5 November 2019. These proceedings are governed by the provisions of the Local Court Act 2007 (NSW) and the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).
Legislation
-
Section 39(2) of the Local Court Act 2007 (NSW) provides a limited basis for a dissatisfied litigant to appeal to this Court from a decision of the Small Claims Division:
“39 Appeals as of right
(1) ...
(2) A party to proceedings before the Court sitting in its Small Claims Division who is dissatisfied with a judgment or order of the Court may appeal to the District Court, but only on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or denial of procedural fairness.”
-
The applicable policy considerations embedded in the Local Court Act 2007 concern the quick, cheap, efficient and informal disposition of proceedings in the Small Claims Division of the Local Court: Tonab Investments Pty Ltd v Optima Developments Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 287, at [101]. In addition, any…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Kishore v Transit Systems West Pty Ltd 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2022] NSWDC 93
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the Local Court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's summons. The plaintiff argued that the Local Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter and that they were denied procedural fairness during the proceedings. The court examined the nature of the dispute and the applicable legal principles to determine the validity of these claims. The court needed to consider the procedural fairness and jurisdictional aspects of the Local Court's decision to ensure that justice was properly administered.
After examining the arguments and the evidence presented, the court found that the Local Court did not err in dismissing the plaintiff's summons. The court held that the Local Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter and that the plaintiff was not denied procedural fairness during the proceedings. The court found the plaintiff's claims to be without merit and dismissed the summons. The court further ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs associated with the dismissed summons. The parties have agreed to determine the basis and extent of these costs based on written submissions to be completed within seven days.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's summons, finding that the Local Court's decision was correct. The plaintiff is required to pay the defendant's costs associated with the dismissed summons. The basis and extent of these costs are to be determined by the parties following written submissions on costs to be completed within seven days.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The plaintiff’s summons filed on 9 February 2022 is dismissed;
2. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of the dismissed summons;
3. With the consent of the parties the basis and the extent of the costs referred to in Order 2 are to be determined on the papers following consideration of written submissions on costs which are to be completed by the parties within 7 days.
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.