Samootin v Shea [2010] NSWCA 124

Samootin v Shea [2010] NSWCA 124

The proceedings were dismissed as against Ms Wagner and Mr Holmes because the current summons for leave to appeal concerned only orders of Hammerschlag J that had no bearing on them, prior challenges to Palmer J's judgment in their favour had failed, and no legitimate basis was shown for any prospect of an extension of time to bring a further leave application against that judgment. Ms Samootin's motion was dismissed and costs were ordered against her because she resisted their removal from proceedings that did not presently involve them.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion in Court of Appeal Proceedings Concerning a Summons for Leave to Appeal / Application by Fifth and Sixth Respondents to Dismiss Proceedings as Against Them, and Appellant's Notice of Motion Filed in Court
Outcome
Motion by the fifth and sixth respondents granted; Ms Samootin's notice of motion dismissed; Ms Samootin ordered to pay costs.
Legal Topics
['dismissal of Proceedings as Against Parties' 'leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal' 'costs of Motions']
['civil Procedure' 'appeals' 'costs'] ['dismissal of Proceedings as Against Parties' 'leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal' 'costs of Motions']

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

Notice of Motion in Court of Appeal Proceedings Concerning a Summons for Leave to Appeal / Application by Fifth and Sixth Respondents to Dismiss Proceedings as Against Them, and Appellant's Notice of Motion Filed in Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings in the Court of Appeal should be dismissed as against the fifth and sixth respondents.' "Whether Ms Samootin's notice of motion seeking an adjournment or dismissal of the fifth and sixth respondents' motion should be granted." 'Whether costs should be ordered against Ms Samootin.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings were dismissed as against Ms Wagner and Mr Holmes because the current summons for leave to appeal concerned only orders of Hammerschlag J that had no bearing on them, prior challenges to Palmer J's judgment in their favour had failed, and no legitimate basis was shown for any prospect of an extension of time to bring a further leave application against that judgment. Ms Samootin's motion was dismissed and costs were ordered against her because she resisted their removal from proceedings that did not presently involve them.

Court Disposition

Motion by the fifth and sixth respondents granted; Ms Samootin's notice of motion dismissed; Ms Samootin ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • ['The proceedings as against Ms Giselle Wagner and Mr Adrian Holmes are dismissed.' 'Dismiss the notice of motion filed in court by Ms Samootin.' 'Order Ms Samootin to pay the costs of the fifth and sixth opponents as applicants to the motion of the motion brought by them and of her motion filed in court today.']