Clark v State of New South Wales [2020] NSWSC 655

Clark v State of New South Wales [2020] NSWSC 655

Leave to amend the Notice of Motion to seek substantive injunctive relief and an oral hearing for that purpose was refused because such relief could not be commenced or disposed of by amending a procedural Notice of Motion in an interlocutory matter. The application to re-open was dismissed because the 12 April 2018 orders concerned practice and procedure, the Court was not satisfied that Mr Clark should be permitted to reopen and re-agitate the decision, and the principal relief sought was not practically available because the Court did not maintain a list of solicitors and barristers prepared to accept pro bono referrals. No additional argument, fact or evidence could change that result.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Interlocutory Application / Notice of Motion Dealt With in Chambers on the Papers
Outcome
The plaintiff's Notice of Motion filed on 23 May 2018 was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Orders' 'referral for Pro Bono Representation' 'application to Re Open Proceedings' 'circumstances Justifying Re Opening Proceedings' 'extreme Duress' 'amendment of Notice of Motion' 'injunctive Relief']
['civil Procedure'] ['interlocutory Orders' 'referral for Pro Bono Representation' 'application to Re Open Proceedings' 'circumstances Justifying Re Opening Proceedings' 'extreme Duress' 'amendment of Notice of Motion' 'injunctive Relief']

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

Civil Procedure Interlocutory Application / Notice of Motion Dealt With in Chambers on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the Notice of Motion to seek an oral hearing and injunctive relief.' "Whether the plaintiff should be permitted to re-open and re-agitate the Court's decision of 12 April 2018 dismissing his earlier Notice of Motion." 'Whether alleged extreme duress justified reopening the interlocutory decision.' 'Whether the plaintiff could obtain a list of solicitors and barristers on the pro bono panel.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend the Notice of Motion to seek substantive injunctive relief and an oral hearing for that purpose was refused because such relief could not be commenced or disposed of by amending a procedural Notice of Motion in an interlocutory matter. The application to re-open was dismissed because the 12 April 2018 orders concerned practice and procedure, the Court was not satisfied that Mr Clark should be permitted to reopen and re-agitate the decision, and the principal relief sought was not practically available because the Court did not maintain a list of solicitors and barristers prepared to accept pro bono referrals. No additional argument, fact or evidence could change that result.

Court Disposition

The plaintiff's Notice of Motion filed on 23 May 2018 was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's Notice of Motion filed on 23 May 2018 is dismissed." "As the matter has been dealt with in chambers without the need for any appearance by any party, the defendant's costs are costs in the cause."]