Rahman v Riordan

[2011] NSWCA 54

Court of Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title:	Rahman v Riordan
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2011] NSWCA 54
Hearing Date(s):	9 March 2011
Decision Date:	09 March 2011
Jurisdiction:
Before:	Tobias JA at [1]; [9]; [15] Macfarlan JA at [2] Sackville AJA at [12]
Decision:	The notice of motion dated 23 December 2010 is dismissed with costs. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords:	APPEAL - civil - application to set aside orders dismissing leave application - application refused - no issue of principle
Legislation Cited:	Supreme Court Act 1970 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
Cases Cited:	Forge v Australian Securities & Investments Commission [2006] HCA 44; (2006) 228 CLR 45
Texts Cited:
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Mohammad Tabibar Rahman (Applicant) Peter Riordan (First Respondent) David McGrath (Second Respondent)
Representation
- Counsel:	Counsel: Applicant in person C Miles (Solicitor for First and Second Respondents)
- Solicitors:	Solicitors: NSW Department of Education and Training (First and Second Respondents)
File number(s):	CA 2009/298070
Decision Under Appeal
- Court / Tribunal:
- Before:	Tobias JA; Macfarlan JA; Handley AJA
- Date of Decision:	15 December 2010
- Citation:	[2010] NSWCA 375
- Court File Number(s)	CA 2009/298070
Publication Restriction:

Judgment

1. TOBIAS JA : I will ask Macfarlan JA to give the first judgment.

1. MACFARLAN JA : This is an application by notice of motion dated 23 December 2010 for orders setting aside orders made by this Court on 23 September, 1 November and 15 December 2010 and for an order fixing a new court date, apparently for the rehearing of an application made by Mr Rahman for leave to appeal against a decision dated 20 April 2010 of McClellan CJ at CL ([2010] NSWSC 409). That application for leave was dismissed by Giles JA and Sackville AJA on 23 September 2010. These various decisions and orders, and the circumstances in which they were made, are sufficiently described in the Court's judgment of 15 December 2010, for which the reference is [2010] NSWCA 375.

1. Much of what Mr Rahman has said and written in support of his notice of motion is difficult to understand. It is at times unintelligible. As best I can determine, the effect of his contentions is as follows.

1. First Mr Rahman alleges that one or more of the courts that made the earlier decisions or orders was not properly constituted under the provisions of the Supreme Court Act 1970. I can discern no sensible argument to support that contention.

1. Secondly Mr Rahman contends that one or more of the judges concerned has participated in more than one decision concerning Mr Rahman. However, Mr Rahman…