Markisic v Nicholson CJ

[2001] NSWSC 811

CITATION:	Markisic & Anor v Nicholson CJ [2001] NSWSC 811
CURRENT JURISDICTION:	Common Law
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 12575/01
HEARING DATE(S):	27 & 30 August 2001
JUDGMENT DATE:	17 September 2001
PARTIES :	Oliver Markisic Dragan Markisic Chief Justice Alistair Nicholson
JUDGMENT OF:	Sperling J at 1

COUNSEL :	Plaintiffs in person No appearance for the Defendant
SOLICITORS:
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal Law - summary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court - no question of principle
LEGISLATION CITED:	Supreme Court (Summary Jurisdiction) Act 1967, s3
DECISION:	(1) Summons struck out; (2) Leave to file an amended summons within 28 days complying with the following requirements: (a) each alleged offence should be specified with clarity and precision in a separate numbered paragraph; (b) the paragraph in relation to each offence should also specify the statutory provision (if any) by which this court is given jurisdiction to try the offence in its summary jurisdiction (stating the name of the statute and the section which gives this court jurisdiction in relation to the particular offence).

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

COMMON LAW DIVISION

17 September 2001

Sperling J

12575/01 Markisic & Anor v Nicholson CJ

1 HIS HONOUR: The summons purportedly commences criminal proceedings in this court in its summary jurisdiction. The summons is in the form prescribed for that purpose: Form 74A. The plaintiffs seek directions as to service.

2 The only criminal proceedings which may be commenced by summons in this court are proceedings for offences that may be tried in the court’s summary jurisdiction. That jurisdiction is limited to cases where jurisdiction is given to the court by a statute. This situation arises from s 3(1) of the Supreme Court (Summary Jurisdiction) Act 1967, which provides as follows:

3. (1) Where, under any Act, proceedings for an offence may be taken before the Court in its summary jurisdiction, the Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine those proceedings in a summary manner.

3 The summons does not sufficiently specify the offences charged. It should accordingly be struck out.

4 The plaintiffs should have leave to file an amended summons, on terms which I will specify.

5 The orders are as follows:

(1) Summons struck out;

(2) Leave to file an amended summons within 28 days complying with the following requirements:
(a) each alleged offence should be specified with clarity and precision in a separate numbered paragraph;
(b) the paragraph in relation to each offence should also specify the statutory provision (if any) by which this court is given jurisdiction to try the offence in its summary jurisdiction (stating the name of the statute and the section which gives this court jurisdiction in relation to the particular offence).
-oOo-

Last Modified: 09/19/2001