Wang v Botany View Hotel (No 2)

[2017] NSWCA 298

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Wang v Botany View Hotel (No 2) [2017] NSWCA 298
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Date of orders:	24 November 2017
Decision date:	24 November 2017
Before:	Macfarlan JA at [1]; White JA at [1]
Decision:	Applicant’s notice of motion filed on 16 October 2017 be dismissed with costs.
Catchwords:	CIVIL PROCEDURE — Court of Appeal — Judgments and orders of — Setting aside own orders — UCPR r 36.16(3A) — oral hearing not warranted — incomprehensible grounds — no identifiable error which justifies setting aside own orders — notice of motion dismissed
Legislation Cited:	Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 36.16(3A)
Cases Cited:	Majak v Rose (No 5) [2017] NSWCA 238 Riley v California 573 US 13-132 (2014) Wang v Botany View Hotel [2017] NSWCA 249
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Yun Fu Wang (Applicant) Botany View Hotel (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: N/A   Solicitors: Dezarnaulds Legal (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2017/226258
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: Supreme Court of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Common Law Division Citation: [2017] NSWSC 644 Date of Decision: 16 May 2017 Before: McCallum J File Number(s): 2016/266303

Judgment

1. THE COURT: On 9 October 2017 we dismissed an application by Mr Wang for leave to appeal from an order of the Common Law Division (McCallum J) summarily dismissing his proceeding (Wang v Botany View Hotel [2017] NSWCA 249).

2. On 16 October 2017 Mr Wang filed a notice of motion. We set out below the relief sought in the notice of motion and what are apparently the grounds upon which the relief is claimed, but omitting an 11-page typed annexure. Although he does not say so, we assume that Mr Wang is seeking an order setting aside the orders made on 9 October 2017. Because the notice of motion was filed within 14 days of the entry of the orders of 9 October 2017 the Court has power to set aside those orders (Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 36.16(3A)).

3. The relief claimed in the notice of motion is as follows:

“Worker established public safety, courts unfair charge ‘unreasonable’ no two judge’s name, collect term without my oral appeal, pay full fee I pay $1441, special half hours does not court a person, NSW Commonwealth ACT reopen.”

4. Mr Wang has written on the notice of motion what appear to be grounds for the relief sought. They are as follows:

“(1)   The decision was no two judge’s name, two judge collect McCallum J’s term same dismiss, without my oral with roles, I claim reopen court by Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

(2)   I paid full court fee, court was partial refused in half hours court a setting down fee cannot be refunded, it relate to does not court a person Refund of Court fees Act, half hours relate no identify large case

(3)   McCallum J Charge ‘unreasonable cause action by 13.4’. The worker established. The NSW Ombudsman requir public…