Huang v Nazaran [2023] NSWCA 8

Huang v Nazaran [2023] NSWCA 8

Leave to file the Amended Summons was refused because the proposed jurisdictional error argument was untenable: the Local Court and District Court had jurisdiction to decide whether offensive noise existed, and any alleged error about the air conditioning unit's location was an error, if any, within jurisdiction. The proposed amendment also had no prospects of success, was sought very late, and no explanation for the delay was provided. Because the relief sought in the original Summons was abandoned, the Summons was dismissed with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Summons Seeking Relief in the Nature of Certiorari and Mandamus Arising From District Court Appeal Concerning a Noise Abatement Order / Application for Leave to File Amended Summons in the Court of Appeal; Summons Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to file Amended Summons refused. Summons dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Amend Originating Process' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'noise Abatement Orders' 'offensive Noise' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'environmental Law'] ['leave to Amend Originating Process' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'noise Abatement Orders' 'offensive Noise' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal']

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 Summons Seeking Relief in the Nature of Certiorari and Mandamus Arising From District Court Appeal Concerning a Noise Abatement Order / Application for Leave to File Amended Summons in the Court of Appeal; Summons Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to file an Amended Summons seeking certiorari to quash District Court orders made on 10 May 2022.' 'Whether the alleged failure by the Local Court and District Court to find the existence of offensive noise amounted to jurisdictional error by wrongful refusal to assume jurisdiction.' 'Whether alleged findings about the location of the air conditioning unit were errors within jurisdiction or jurisdictional errors.' 'Whether the lateness and lack of explanation for the proposed amendment justified refusing leave.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to file the Amended Summons was refused because the proposed jurisdictional error argument was untenable: the Local Court and District Court had jurisdiction to decide whether offensive noise existed, and any alleged error about the air conditioning unit's location was an error, if any, within jurisdiction. The proposed amendment also had no prospects of success, was sought very late, and no explanation for the delay was provided. Because the relief sought in the original Summons was abandoned, the Summons was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Leave to file Amended Summons refused. Summons dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave to file Amended Summons refused.' 'Summons dismissed with costs.']