Denny v RSPCA NSW [2021] NSWCA 342

Denny v RSPCA NSW [2021] NSWCA 342

Because the applicant had filed submissions and was no longer in default of the relevant directions, it was inappropriate to dismiss the proceedings for want of prosecution. However, given the prior defaults and the need to bring the proceedings into order, the applicant was required to file and serve an Amended Summons specifying the decisions challenged and the grounds of judicial review, with dismissal of the proceedings to follow automatically if she did not comply.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Proceedings in the Court of Appeal / Respondent's Notice of Motion Seeking Dismissal for Want of Due Despatch; Directions Made for Amended Summons With Self Executing Dismissal If Not Complied With
Outcome
Proceedings not dismissed immediately; directions made for filing and service of an Amended Summons, with self-executing dismissal with costs if the applicant does not comply.
Legal Topics
['dismissal for Want of Due Despatch' 'want of Prosecution' 'court of Appeal Procedure' 'amended Summons' 'self Executing Dismissal Order']
['civil Procedure' 'judicial Review'] ['dismissal for Want of Due Despatch' 'want of Prosecution' 'court of Appeal Procedure' 'amended Summons' 'self Executing Dismissal Order']

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 Proceedings in the Court of Appeal / Respondent's Notice of Motion Seeking Dismissal for Want of Due Despatch; Directions Made for Amended Summons With Self Executing Dismissal If Not Complied With

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings should be dismissed for want of due despatch or want of prosecution.' 'Whether the applicant should be required to file an Amended Summons specifying each decision sought to be reviewed and the grounds of review.' "Whether a single judge of appeal could refuse leave to appeal in the circumstances raised by the respondent's submissions."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicant had filed submissions and was no longer in default of the relevant directions, it was inappropriate to dismiss the proceedings for want of prosecution. However, given the prior defaults and the need to bring the proceedings into order, the applicant was required to file and serve an Amended Summons specifying the decisions challenged and the grounds of judicial review, with dismissal of the proceedings to follow automatically if she did not comply.

Court Disposition

Proceedings not dismissed immediately; directions made for filing and service of an Amended Summons, with self-executing dismissal with costs if the applicant does not comply.

Orders

  • ['Direct that by 14 February 2022 the applicant file and serve an Amended Summons specifying each decision in respect of which judicial review is sought, and with particularity the grounds upon which judicial review is sought.' 'If the applicant does not comply with order 1, the proceedings are dismissed with...