Mohareb v Manly Local Court

Mohareb sought leave to appeal from a decision of the Manly Local Court. The applicant challenged an administrative direction made by a single judge of the Court of Appeal regarding the listing of the application for leave to appeal, which had been directed to be heard separately from the substantive appeal. The applicant, unrepresented, also sought to vacate the hearing of the application for leave to appeal to allow more time for preparation, noting that the second respondent had filed a late response that contained no surprises.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the administrative direction of the President of the Court of Appeal, to hear the application for leave to appeal separately from the substantive appeal, constituted a judgment, order, or direction that was amenable to challenge or review by the applicant. A secondary issue concerned the applicant's request to vacate the hearing of the application for leave to appeal.

Gleeson JA determined that the direction of the President of the Court of Appeal was an administrative act concerning the listing of proceedings and was not a judgment, order, or direction that could be challenged or reviewed by the Court. The Court found no basis to interfere with the administrative decision regarding the hearing of the application for leave to appeal. Furthermore, the Court found no prejudice to the applicant from the late filing of the second respondent's response, and therefore no grounds to vacate the hearing.

Consequently, the applicant's amended notice of motion was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the second respondent's costs of the motion.