Court of Appeal
New South Wales
Case Title: Macatangay v State of New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: [2012] NSWCA 305 Hearing Date(s): On the papers Decision Date: 21 September 2012 Jurisdiction: Before: Macfarlan JA
Sackville AJA
Tobias AJA
Decision: The notice of motion filed by the applicant on 24 August 2012 seeking leave to file a further application is dismissed.
[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: Legislation Cited: N/A Cases Cited: Macatangay v State of New South Wales [2012] NSWCA 108
Macatangay v State of New South Wales, NSWCA, Handley and Sackville AJJA, unreported, 20 September 2010
Texts Cited: N/A Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Miguela Alvarez Macatangay (Applicant)
State of New South Wales (Respondent)
Representation - Counsel: Counsel:
N/A- Solicitors: Solicitors:
N/AFile number(s): 20144 of 2005 or 269316 of 2005 Decision Under Appeal - Court / Tribunal: - Before: Grove J - Date of Decision: 09 February 2007 - Citation: Macatangay v State of New South Wales [2007] NSWSC 57 - Court File Number(s) 2005/20144 Publication Restriction:
JUDGMENT
THE COURT: The Court has before it a notice of motion and a supporting affidavit filed by Miguela Alvarez Macatangay (the applicant) on 24 August 2012.
The matter the subject of the notice of motion has a long history and its chronology has been set out in a previous judgment of this Court (Macatangay v State of New South Wales, NSWCA, Handley and Sackville AJJA, unreported, 20 September 2010). The matter has come before a number of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal on a number of occasions. Most recently it was before the Court of Appeal on 16 April 2012 (Macatangay v State of New South Wales [2012] NSWCA 108).
On that occasion the Court had before it two notices of motion filed by the applicant and one notice of motion filed by the State of New South Wales (the respondent). The Court dismissed the applicant's notices of motion which sought to re-agitate matters raised unsuccessfully on numerous previous occasions and, in accordance with the respondent's notice of motion, made an order restraining the applicant from making any further applications in matters 20144 of 2005 and 269316 of 2005 without leave of the Court.
By the notice of motion presently before the Court, the applicant now seeks leave of the Court to file a further application in relation to proceedings 20144 of 2005 or 269316 of 2005.
The applicant has provided nothing of substance in addition to what was before the Court on 16 April 2012, and therefore, for the same reasons set out by this Court on 16 April 2012, the notice of motion filed by the applicant on 24 August 2012 seeking leave to file a further application is dismissed.
**********
- AGLC
- Macatangay v State of New South Wales [2012] NSWCA 305
- Case
- [2012] NSWCA 305
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether to grant the applicant leave to file a further application. This implicitly involved considering the timeliness of such an application and whether it fell within any relevant procedural rules or exceptions.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's notice of motion. While the reasoning is not elaborated upon in the provided text, the outcome suggests that the Court did not find sufficient grounds to permit the filing of a further application, potentially due to time limits or other procedural requirements as indicated by the reference to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. The Court's order was that the notice of motion be dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
The notice of motion filed by the applicant on 24 August 2012 seeking leave to file a further application is dismissed.
[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.]
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.