Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Mendonca v Tonna [2025] NSWCA 112 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 26 May 2025 Decision date: 26 May 2025 Before: Kirk JA; Price AJA at [1] Decision: The applicant’s motion filed on 6 May 2025 is dismissed.
Catchwords: JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – Court of Appeal – motion to set aside or vary orders – application for re-opening appropriate to be determined by judges who made the decision – too late for applicant to seek to join parties to proceedings where she was clearly warned she needed to do so before – no irregularity, illegality or lack of good faith identified – a party’s dissatisfaction with result of litigation does not suffice as basis for re-opening
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 36.15, 36.16(3A), 51.4(3)
Cases Cited: Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; [2000] HCA 63
Mendonca v Tonna [2024] NSWCA 288
Mendonca v Tonna; Mendonca v Hathaway; The application of Hathaway and Hosking [2024] NSWSC 1024
Mohareb v Local Court of New South Wales [2024] NSWCA 235
State of New South Wales v Hollingsworth (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 283
Category: Consequential orders Parties: Renuka Mendonca (Applicant; self-represented)
Mark Tonna (First respondent)
Lorraine Tonna (Second respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
D Stewart / D Emmerig (Respondents)
BlackBay Lawyers (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2025/039861 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Equity
- Citation:
- Date of Decision:
- 15 August 2024
- Before:
- Kunc J
- File Number(s):
- 2021/115917; 2022/264829; 2022/7598
JUDGMENT
-
THE COURT: This judgment concerns a motion seeking re-opening of an earlier decision. The core purpose of judicial power is to quell disputes. In the nature of things, many litigants are unhappy with the result of proceedings. In some cases such litigants will exercise a right to appeal or seek leave to appeal. However, some litigants, commonly unrepresented, find it difficult to accept that a court has ruled against them and approach that court asking it to re-open its decision. Such applications often manifest the subjective certitude of the litigant that any court which properly understood and considered their contentions could not possibly reject them. Of course, in some cases there is due cause to re-open judicial decisions. It is possible, for example, that the court in question has simply overlooked some argument that was made or some evidence that had been drawn to attention. But such cases are rare. This is not one of them.
-
On 29 April 2025 we handed down a decision refusing the applicant, Dr Renuka Mendonca, leave to appeal in a dispute relating in substance to costs: Mendonca v Tonna [2025] NSWCA 82 (J). The applicant had also filed a notice of appeal in separate proceedings but she conceded that she needed leave to appeal. On that basis we…
Continue reading Mendonca v Tonna
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Mendonca v Tonna [2025] NSWCA 112
- Case
- [2025] NSWCA 112
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether it was appropriate to grant the applicant's request to set aside or vary the existing orders, and whether the applicant should be permitted to join new parties to the proceedings at this late stage. The court also considered whether there were any grounds, such as irregularity, illegality, or lack of good faith, that would justify re-opening the matter.
The court reasoned that an application to re-open or vary orders is generally best determined by the judges who made the original decision. It found that the applicant had been clearly warned of the need to join parties earlier in the proceedings and that it was now too late to do so. The court identified no irregularity, illegality, or lack of good faith in the prior proceedings, concluding that mere dissatisfaction with the outcome of litigation is insufficient grounds for re-opening.
Consequently, the applicant’s motion filed on 6 May 2025 was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
The applicant’s motion filed on 6 May 2025 is dismissed.
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.