Pi v Zhou

Case [2016] NSWCA 24

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Pi v Zhou [2016] NSWCA 24
Hearing dates:29 February 2016
Decision date: 02 March 2016
Before: Gleeson JA
Decision:

(1) Summons dismissed.
(2) Applicant (Mr Pi) to pay the respondents’ costs of the summons.

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – summary dismissal – summons seeking review pursuant to s 69 Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) – power to summarily dismiss proceedings – s 46(1)(b) Supreme Court Act – power only exercised where high degree of uncertainty about the outcome of the proceedings – orders of Supreme Court judge not amenable to judicial review under s 69
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 98(1)(c)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 46(1)(b), 46(2)(b), 69
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 13.4, 42.1
Vexatious Proceedings Act (2008) (NSW), 8(7)(b)
Cases Cited: Agar v Hyde [2000] HCA 41; (2000) 201 CLR 552
Australian Executor Trustees Ltd v Pachkovski [2011] NSWCA 23
Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) [2006] HCA 27; (2006) 226 CLR 256
Macatangay v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 272
Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 193 CLR 72
Penson v Titan National Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 404
Spencer v Commonwealth [2010] HCA 28; (2010) 241 CLR 118
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Jian Cheng Zhou (First applicant on the Motion)
Christine Zhao (Second applicant on the Motion)
Guang Hua Pi (Respondent on the Motion)
Representation: Solicitors:
Wang Lawyers Pty Ltd (Applicants)
Respondent (Self-represented)
File Number(s):2016/41912
Publication restriction:Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Common Law
Citation:
[2015] NSWSC 1644
Date of Decision:
9 November 2015
Before:
Adamson J
File Number(s):
2013/389177

Judgment

  1. GLEESON JA: Before the Court is a notice of motion filed 19 February 2016 by Jian Cheng Zhou and Christine Zhao for summary dismissal of a summons filed 9 February 2016 seeking judicial review pursuant to s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) (Supreme Court Act) of a decision of Adamson J given on 9 November 2015: Pi v Zhou [2015] NSWSC 1644.

  2. The background to the matter is as follows. Between about June 2010 and early 2011, Mr Zhou and Mrs Zhao leased a separate one-bedroom flat at a property which they owned in Lakemba to Mr Pi. On 12 January 2011, there was an altercation at the property between Mr Zhou and Mr Pi. This followed Mr Zhou having given Mr Pi two weeks’ notice to move out of the property on or about 9 January 2011.

  3. Mr Pi brought proceedings in the Supreme Court against Mr Zhou and Mrs Zhao claiming damages for breach of contract against Mr Zhou arising out of his eviction from the property, damages against both Mr Zhou and Mrs Zhao with respect to an alleged assault and damages against Mr Zhou for conversion of a washing machine. The…

Continue reading Pi v Zhou

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Pi v Zhou [2016] NSWCA 24
Case
[2016] NSWCA 24
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr Pi, sought judicial review of orders made by a Supreme Court judge in proceedings against the respondents, Mr and Ms Zhou. The application for review was brought pursuant to section 69 of the *Supreme Court Act 1970* (NSW).

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Supreme Court judge had erred in summarily dismissing Mr Pi's proceedings. This involved considering the scope of the court's power to summarily dismiss proceedings under section 46(1)(b) of the *Supreme Court Act 1970* (NSW) and whether the judge's orders were amenable to judicial review under section 69 of the same Act.

Gleeson JA held that the power to summarily dismiss proceedings under section 46(1)(b) should only be exercised where there is a high degree of uncertainty about the outcome of the proceedings. His Honour found that the orders made by the Supreme Court judge were not amenable to judicial review under section 69. Consequently, the summons seeking judicial review was dismissed, and Mr Pi was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the summons.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Summons dismissed.

(2) Applicant (Mr Pi) to pay the respondents’ costs of the summons.

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.