Patsalis v Attorney General for the State of New South Wales

In *Patsalis v Attorney General for the State of New South Wales*, the applicant sought judicial review of a decision made by a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The core of the dispute concerned whether proceedings for prerogative relief against a decision of a Supreme Court judge, made under s 78 of the *Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001* (NSW), were properly commenced in the Court of Appeal. The applicant also sought to amend a draft notice of appeal to pursue relief under ss 65 and 69 of the *Supreme Court Act 1970* (NSW), raising questions about the nature of the impugned decision and whether its substantive issues were appropriately dealt with by a single judge of the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the decision of the Supreme Court judge was judicial or non-judicial in nature. This characterisation was critical to assessing the availability of the sought-after relief. Further, the Court had to consider whether the applicant was entitled to amend their draft notice of appeal to seek relief under different provisions of the *Supreme Court Act 1970* (NSW), particularly in light of potential time limitations under the *Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005* (NSW) for such amendments, and whether the impugned decision was handed down prior to the commencement of those rules.

Basten JA granted the applicant leave to file an amended summons, treating the statement of the nature of the case within that document as submissions in support of the application. The Court directed the Attorney General to file and serve an appropriate notice under s 78B of the *Judiciary Act 1903* (Cth) and permitted further submissions from both parties within a specified timetable. The Court also directed the parties to confer on preparing the necessary material for the hearing and referred the matter to the Registrar to fix a hearing date with expedition, with costs to be costs in the summons proceedings.