Olsen v Mentink
Case
•
[2019] NSWCA 279
•18 November 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Olsen v Mentink [2019] NSWCA 279
[2019] NSWCA 279
18 November 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Olsen v Mentink*, the unsuccessful plaintiff, Olsen, had filed a notice of intention to appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The successful defendant, Mentink, sought orders from the Court of Appeal limiting the time within which Olsen could formally commence his appeal.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether it possessed the jurisdiction and power to make an order limiting the time for the filing of an appeal, and if so, whether such an order should be made in the circumstances of this case.
Leeming JA considered the relevant rules of court and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. His Honour concluded that while the Court of Appeal had the power to manage its own process and ensure the efficient administration of justice, it did not have the power to abridge the statutory time limits for filing an appeal, nor could it impose a condition on the filing of an appeal that was not prescribed by the rules. The application was therefore refused.
The Court dismissed the first paragraph of the summons filed by the defendant, with costs. The balance of the summons was stood over to be treated as a notice of motion for expedition, should an appeal be filed.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether it possessed the jurisdiction and power to make an order limiting the time for the filing of an appeal, and if so, whether such an order should be made in the circumstances of this case.
Leeming JA considered the relevant rules of court and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. His Honour concluded that while the Court of Appeal had the power to manage its own process and ensure the efficient administration of justice, it did not have the power to abridge the statutory time limits for filing an appeal, nor could it impose a condition on the filing of an appeal that was not prescribed by the rules. The application was therefore refused.
The Court dismissed the first paragraph of the summons filed by the defendant, with costs. The balance of the summons was stood over to be treated as a notice of motion for expedition, should an appeal be filed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Jurisdiction
-
Costs
-
Stay of Proceedings
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Olsen v Mentink [2019] NSWCA 279
Most Recent Citation
Sayer-Jones v The King [2024] NSWCCA 183
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Salmon v Albarran
[2024] NSWCA 3
Zhiva Living Dural Pty Limited v Hornsby Shire Council
[2020] NSWCA 180
Cases Cited
9
Statutory Material Cited
4
Olsen v Mentink
[2019] NSWSC 1299
Dillon v Boland; Dillon v Cush
[2012] NSWCA 364
Moubarak by his tutor Coorey v Holt (No 2)
[2019] NSWCA 188