Manny v Nissen

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory considered two applications brought by the appellant, Jeff Manny. The first was an application for summary judgment, and the second was an application for leave to appeal against a judgment delivered in 2010. The court noted that these applications stemmed from long-standing grievances of the appellant.

The legal issues before the court were whether it had the jurisdiction to grant summary judgment in the context of an appeal under section 37J of the *Supreme Court Act 1933* (ACT), and whether the application for leave to appeal could proceed given it had not been served on the respondents and had not been sealed by the Registry.

Regarding the application for summary judgment, the court found it lacked the power to grant such relief as a single judge of appeal under section 37J of the *Supreme Court Act 1933* (ACT). Furthermore, the court determined that the relevant rules of the *Court Procedures Rules 2006* (ACT) did not apply to the proceedings, meaning there was no jurisdiction to enter summary judgment. The application for leave to appeal faced significant procedural hurdles. It had not been served on the respondents, and the court was informed that one respondent had passed away approximately ten years prior, with no indication of whether his estate was a party. The whereabouts of the second respondent were unknown, and he had previously expressed a desire to have no further involvement. Additionally, the application for leave to appeal had not been sealed by the Registry.

Consequently, both the application for summary judgment and the application for leave to appeal were dismissed. The dismissal of the application for leave to appeal was without prejudice to the appellant filing a further application after rectifying the identified issues. The court ordered that the appellant pay the respondents' costs of the summary judgment application, with those costs not to be payable until the conclusion of any appeal.