Rodny v Stricke (No 2)

Case [2020] NSWSC 1126

Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Rodny v Stricke (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1126
Hearing dates: 4 August 2020
Date of orders: 24 August 2020
Decision date: 24 August 2020
Jurisdiction:Common Law
Before: Harrison AsJ
Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) An extension of time to file the summons up to 30 April 2020 is granted.

(2) The plaintiff’s solicitor is to personally pay the costs thrown away by reason of delay in complying with the orders of the Court on 13 February 2020.

(3) Leave to appeal is refused.

(4) The summons filed 30 April 2020 is dismissed.

(5) The plaintiff is to pay the defendants’ costs as agreed or assessed.

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Civil procedure – Leave to appeal from a costs decision of the Appeal Panel of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal – Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), s 83 – Whether the Tribunal misapplied s 60 in determining that special circumstances existed – Leave to appeal refused

Legislation Cited:

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), ss 60, 83

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 50.12

Cases Cited:

Gallo v Dawson (1990) HCA 30; 93 ALR 479

House v King (1936) 55 CLR 499

Lee v New South Wales Crime Commission (2012) 224 A Crim R 94; [2012] NSWCA 262

Maitland v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 155

Rodny v Stricke [2020] NSWCATAP 20

Rodny v Stricke [2020] NSWSC 800

Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Laurence Rodny (Plaintiff)
Communications Power Incorporation (Aust) Pty Ltd (Second Plaintiff)
Angela Stricke (First Defendant)
Helen Meddings (Second Defendant)
Natalie Stoianoff (Third Defendant)
David Kallaway (Fourth Defendant)
Vlad Sofreski (Fifth Defendant)
The Owners - Strata Plan No 56911 (Sixth Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
I Chatterjee (Plaintiff)
J Knackstredt (Defendants)

Solicitors:
Strata Specialist Lawyers (Plaintiffs)
Clyde & Co (Defendants)
File Number(s): 2020/128807
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

  1. HER HONOUR: By amended notice of motion filed 16 June 2020, the first, second, third, fifth and sixth defendants seek firstly, an order that the Court determine the plaintiff’s application for an extension of time under r 50.12 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”) separately to the substantive appeal; secondly, that the application for an extension of time to file the summons be refused pursuant to UCPR 50.12; thirdly, that the plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal under s 83 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (“the CAT Act”) be heard separately to the substantive appeal; and finally, that the Court refuse the plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal pursuant to s 83 of the CAT Act. The plaintiff opposes the orders sought. It is the defendants’ notice of motion that is the subject of the hearing before this Court.

  2. By summons filed 30 April 2020, the plaintiff seeks firstly, an order that time to apply for leave be extended; secondly, that leave be granted to appeal from the whole of the decision below; thirdly, that…

Details
AGLC
Rodny v Stricke (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1126
Case
[2020] NSWSC 1126
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rodny v Stricke (No 2) involved a dispute between the parties concerning an appeal from a costs decision made by the Appeal Panel of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision was based on the existence of special circumstances, pursuant to section 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). The primary focus of the appeal was whether the Tribunal misapplied section 60 in determining that these special circumstances existed, which formed the basis of the costs decision. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court were centred on the interpretation and application of section 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). The appellant argued that the Tribunal had erred in its application of the statutory provision, contending that the determination of special circumstances was incorrect. The court was required to consider whether the Tribunal had adhered to the correct legal principles in making its decision, and whether the Tribunal's interpretation of the statutory criteria was consistent with the statutory language and legislative intent.

The court examined the principles of statutory interpretation and the specific criteria outlined in section 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). It concluded that the Tribunal had properly applied the relevant legal standards in determining the existence of special circumstances. The court found that the Tribunal's decision was not erroneous and that there was no basis for the appellant's claim that the Tribunal had misapplied the statutory provision. As such, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal was refused, and the costs decision of the Appeal Panel of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal was upheld. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, in accordance with the costs decision made by the Tribunal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.