von Reisner v Chepurin

[2011] NSWCA 162

Court of Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title:	von Reisner v Chepurin
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2011] NSWCA 162
Hearing Date(s):	30 May 2011
Decision Date:	24 June 2011
Jurisdiction:
Before:	Young JA
Decision:	Appeal 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:	COURTS PRACTICE- whether judgment is final or interlocutory- order dismissing proceedings seeking that District Court proceedings be consolidated with Supreme Court proceedings- held interlocutory.
Legislation Cited:	Uniform Civil Procedure Rules Pt 13.4
Cases Cited:	Hall v Nominal Defendant [1966] HCA 36; 117 CLR 423 In re Page [1910] 1 Ch 489 Sanofi v Parke Davis Pty Ltd (No 1) [1982] HCA 9; 149 CLR 147
Texts Cited:
Category:	Interlocutory applications
Parties:	Koidu von Reisner (Appellant) Oleg Chepurin (First Respondent) Sophia Wayne-Shevchuk (Second Respondent)
Representation
- Counsel:	Appellant in person A J Bowen (Respondents)
- Solicitors:	Appellant self represented Meridian Lawyers (Respondents)
File number(s):	CA 2010/112105
Decision Under Appeal
- Court / Tribunal:
- Before:	Bergin CJ in Eq
- Date of Decision:	15 November 2010
- Citation:
- Court File Number(s)	SC 2010/112105
Publication Restriction:

Judgment

1. YOUNG JA: The Registrar has referred to me for decision the question as to whether this appeal is competent, and if it is not, for it to be dismissed under Part 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.

1. The background is that, by District Court proceedings 1731/2004, the appellant sued two dentists with respect to work done on her teeth. There is no need to go into details save to say that the case was not merely about a filling or extraction, but some more major work, which, according to the appellant, went horribly wrong.

1. It would appear from the proceedings in the District Court that there is some limited concession that part of the appellant's claim may well be valid.

1. There has been a long procedural history to the District Court proceedings, again, which it is not necessary to traverse save that the matter has already gone to the Court of Appeal once and suggestions were made with respect to possible amendment of the pleadings.

1. The appellant then took out the summons in the present Equity proceedings to transfer those District Court proceedings to this Court so that they could be consolidated with that summons. It would appear at that stage that the intention was to expand the present proceedings to claim not only a transfer of the District Court proceedings, but also make those personal claims and claims on behalf of the Commonwealth against the respondents so that the Commonwealth could be reimbursed for medical payments made by it on the appellant's behalf.

1. Originally…