Sinanovic v Bone - [2025] NSWSC 144

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sinanovic v Bone [2025] NSWSC 144
Hearing dates: 21 February 2025
Date of orders: 21 February 2025
Decision date: 21 February 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Faulkner J
Decision:
1. The application for leave for Ms Maria Sinanaj to represent the Plaintiff is dismissed.
2. The Plaintiff pay the Defendants costs of the Notice of Motion dated 11 October 2024 and the oral application for leave for the Plaintiff to appear by a lay advocate, which costs include the costs of 22 October 2024 and 21 February 2025.
3. Stand the matter over to the Common Law Registrar on 8 April 2025.

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application by plaintiff’s former wife for leave to appear for him as lay representative in appeal from Local Court – plaintiff in need of representation by reason of medical condition and written language limitation – no suggestion that plaintiff cannot afford representation by a lawyer – plaintiff does not have faith in lawyers – application dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 17
Local Court Act 2007 (NSW), ss 39, 40, 69
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 7.1, 7.14

Cases Cited:
Damjanovic v Maley [2002] NSWCA 230
Stokes v McCourt [2014] NSWSC 63
Teese v State Bank of New South Wales [2002] NSWCA 219

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Hakija Sinanovic (Plaintiff)
Lunden Bone (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Haines (Defendant)
Solicitors:
ClarkeKann Laywers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2024/00289538

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT (REVISED)

These are proceedings under ss 39 and 40 of the Local Court Act 2007 (NSW) in which the Plaintiff, Mr Sinanovic, appeals from aspects of a decision of the Local Court on 11 July 2024 in which judgment was given against him for $65,246.85, including interest and court costs.
On 26 July 2024, the Local Court made a costs order against Mr Sinanovic.
The Local Court proceedings were brought against Mr Sinanovic by his former landlord for unpaid rent, an occupation fee which accrued after the lease came to an end but whilst Mr Sinanovic remained in possession, and approximately $5,000 to make good the apartment when he eventually left. Mr Sinanovic disputed his liability to the landlord, in large part because of a claim for an abatement of rent under a previous lease said to have arisen from water damage, which claim was rejected by the Local Court.
In the proceedings before this Court, Mr Sinanovic also seeks leave to appeal from other aspects of the Local Court decision which presumably is required given the very limited rights of appeal in s 39(1) of the Local Court Act 2007.
Mr Sinanovic is unrepresented. He was also unrepresented in the Local Court proceedings which entailed two full hearings interspersed with a successful appeal to the Supreme Court. Before that, Mr Sinanovic was unrepresented in proceedings before NCAT which his landlord brought to evict him from the apartment.
On each occasion Mr Sinanovic was assisted before the Court by Maria Sinanaj…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Sinanovic v Bone

Details

AGLC: Sinanovic v Bone [2025] NSWSC 144
Case: [2025] NSWSC 144
Decision Date: 21 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sinanovic v Bone was a case involving a plaintiff, Sinanovic, and a defendant, Bone. The dispute arose from an appeal from a Local Court decision, and the plaintiff sought to have his former wife represent him as a lay representative in the appeal due to his medical condition and limitation in written language. The application was heard by the court, which had to decide whether the plaintiff's former wife could be granted leave to represent him as a lay representative.

The primary legal issue was whether the plaintiff's former wife could be allowed to appear as a lay representative, considering the plaintiff's medical condition and written language limitation, and whether this was justified when there was no suggestion that the plaintiff could not afford legal representation. Additionally, the court had to consider the plaintiff's stated lack of faith in lawyers as a factor in the decision.

The court found that the plaintiff's medical condition and written language limitation did not automatically qualify his former wife to represent him as a lay representative. The court also noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the plaintiff could not afford legal representation, and his stated lack of faith in lawyers did not constitute a sufficient ground for granting the application. Consequently, the court dismissed the application, and the plaintiff's former wife was not permitted to represent him as a lay representative in the appeal.

Orders