Clark v Robards (No 3) [2016] NSWCA 354

Clark v Robards (No 3) [2016] NSWCA 354

The notice of motion was dismissed because the matters raised did not demonstrate any irregularity in the Court's judgment of 9 August 2016, there was no basis or evidence to conclude that the applicant was a person under legal incapacity requiring a tutor under UCPR rr 7.13 or 7.14, the Court had been aware of the applicant's custodial constraints, the State had no obligation to provide him with a full copy of the UCPR, and the remaining matters merely repeated or recast issues that had been or could have been raised earlier.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Application to Reopen or Set Aside Court of Appeal Judgment Dismissing Appeal / Notice of Motion Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['application to Reopen Judgment' 'person Under Legal Incapacity' 'procedural Irregularity' 'finality of Litigation' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) Rr 7.13, 7.14, 36.15 and 36.16']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure'] ['application to Reopen Judgment' 'person Under Legal Incapacity' 'procedural Irregularity' 'finality of Litigation' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) Rr 7.13, 7.14, 36.15 and 36.16']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application to Reopen or Set Aside Court of Appeal Judgment Dismissing Appeal / Notice of Motion Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court's judgment of 9 August 2016 should be set aside or the appeal allowed on the basis that the applicant was a person under legal incapacity under UCPR rr 7.13 and 7.14." 'Whether the alleged conduct of the hearings while the applicant was in custody amounted to an irregularity or miscarriage of justice.' "Whether the State's alleged failure to provide a full copy of the UCPR justified reopening or setting aside the judgment."]

Ratio Decidendi

The notice of motion was dismissed because the matters raised did not demonstrate any irregularity in the Court's judgment of 9 August 2016, there was no basis or evidence to conclude that the applicant was a person under legal incapacity requiring a tutor under UCPR rr 7.13 or 7.14, the Court had been aware of the applicant's custodial constraints, the State had no obligation to provide him with a full copy of the UCPR, and the remaining matters merely repeated or recast issues that had been or could have been raised earlier.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Dismiss the applicant's notice of motion filed on 17 November 2016."]