Slaveski v Connell [2012] NSWSC 810

Slaveski v Connell [2012] NSWSC 810

Because the charges requiring committal proceedings had been withdrawn and the remaining charges would be dealt with summarily, there would be no committal hearing to which any s 91 order could apply. The magistrate's determination no longer affected any right, interest or expectation of the plaintiffs, so the proceedings were frivolous within r 13.4 and should be dismissed. An adjournment would not be in any party's interest or in the interests of justice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Local Court Decision / Second Defendant's Notice of Motion for Summary Disposal of the Plaintiffs' Summons and Plaintiffs' Application for an Adjournment
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed; adjournment application refused.
Legal Topics
['appeal From Interlocutory Local Court Decision' 'committal Proceedings' 'section 91 Criminal Procedure Act Application for Witnesses to Give Oral Evidence' 'summary Dismissal' 'adjournment' 'table 1 and Table 2 Offences']
['judicial Review' 'criminal Procedure' 'civil Procedure'] ['appeal From Interlocutory Local Court Decision' 'committal Proceedings' 'section 91 Criminal Procedure Act Application for Witnesses to Give Oral Evidence' 'summary Dismissal' 'adjournment' 'table 1 and Table 2 Offences']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Local Court Decision / Second Defendant's Notice of Motion for Summary Disposal of the Plaintiffs' Summons and Plaintiffs' Application for an Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs' proceedings challenging the magistrate's refusal of a s 91 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 application had become futile after all charges to be dealt with on indictment were withdrawn and no committal hearing would occur." "Whether the plaintiffs' request for an adjournment of the second defendant's summary dismissal motion should be granted." 'Whether the proceedings were frivolous within r 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the charges requiring committal proceedings had been withdrawn and the remaining charges would be dealt with summarily, there would be no committal hearing to which any s 91 order could apply. The magistrate's determination no longer affected any right, interest or expectation of the plaintiffs, so the proceedings were frivolous within r 13.4 and should be dismissed. An adjournment would not be in any party's interest or in the interests of justice.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed; adjournment application refused.

Orders

  • ['The adjournment application is refused.' 'The proceedings are dismissed.']