Lin v State Rail Authority of NSW

[2005] HCATrans 530

[2005] HCATrans 530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S9 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SARAH LIN

Applicant

and

STATE RAIL AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

McHUGH J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 5 AUGUST 2005, AT 8.56 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J: This is an application for special leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, given on 13 December 2004. In the proceedings in that Court, the applicant sought to vary or discharge the order made by Ipp JA on 1 November 2004, in which his Honour held her appeal incompetent for failure to obtain leave. His Honour further refused to grant such leave. The background to the matter is that, on 5 February 2004, Magistrate Madgwick dismissed the applicant’s action whereby she sought orders that the respondent pay a penalty of $50,000 and compensate her in an amount of $150,000 for the value of goods and equipment of a certain bookstore, the suffering that she claimed to have endured, and the time and resources spent in the proceedings. The applicant had vacated the premises in which she had operated the bookshop, but had left behind certain goods. The State Rail Authority was granted an order by the Local Court authorising it to dispose of the uncollected goods under s 8 of the Uncollected Goods Act 1995 (NSW). The applicant sought to appeal that decision before Master Harrison, who treated the purported appeal as an application for leave to appeal. The application was dismissed. Significantly, Master Harrison considered that the case was doomed to fail.

The applicant’s primary submission is that the Court of Appeal erred in finding that she required leave to appeal. She submits that she was able to appeal as of right. As the Court of Appeal held, this would be so under s 101 of the Supreme Court Act, if the proceedings involved a matter at issue or any claim, demand or question, to the value of, or amounting to the value of $100,000 or more.  The applicant has not shown that $100,000 or more is truly at stake in this case.  The Court of Appeal held that, “[a]t most, [she] puts a broad ambit claim which seeks to include issues of costs and an untenable claim for damages stemming from the appeal from the Local Court as the basis of the competency of the appeal in this Court.”  The Court of Appeal correctly concluded that the applicant did not have a right to appeal.  We agree with that conclusion.  Accordingly, this application for special leave to appeal must be refused.

The application for special leave is dismissed.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order that the application is dismissed.  I publish our joint reasons.

AT 8.56 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED