Maynes v Casey

This matter concerned an appeal from a judgment of the District Court of New South Wales. The applicants, Maynes and Casey, sought to appeal a decision made on 23 December 2010. The respondents challenged the competency of the appeal.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the appeal was competent under section 127(2)(c) of the *District Court Act 1973* (NSW), which requires the appeal to be for a sum of money equal to or exceeding a prescribed amount, and whether the applicants had demonstrated reasonable prospects of obtaining a variation in the judgment exceeding that amount. Subsidiary issues included whether reckless conduct was sufficient to prove assault, whether the apprehension of assault was reasonable, whether a tort of unjustified intrusion on personal privacy existed and was sufficiently pleaded, and whether the applicants had taken reasonable steps to notify potential visitors of a lack of licence to enter their land in the context of trespass.

The court determined that the appeal was incompetent because the applicants had not satisfied the requirements of section 127(2)(c) of the *District Court Act 1973* (NSW). The affidavit evidence did not demonstrate that the likely amount of damages recoverable would meet the statutory threshold. The court found that the applicants had not shown they had reasonable prospects of obtaining a variation in the judgment for an amount equal to or exceeding the statutory figure. The court also noted that the applicants had not established sufficient factual findings for a claim of invasion of privacy and that the conduct of the applicants themselves may have negated any implied right of entry for legitimate business.

The court dismissed the appeal as incompetent. However, it granted the applicants an extension of time to seek leave to appeal, but ultimately refused that application. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs.