Samootin v Shea & Ors [2005] NSWCA 16

Samootin v Shea & Ors [2005] NSWCA 16

The amended notice of motion was dismissed because Ms Samootin had not shown any real prospect of obtaining leave, special leave, or appellate relief that would overturn Palmer J's substantive decision or the many costs orders; many of the matters identified involved nothing to stay, were procedurally irregular, affected parties had not been served, or were otherwise unsupported. The application was in large part misconceived and wholly without substance, warranting indemnity costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Stays of Judgments and Costs Orders by Amended Notice of Motion in Court of Appeal Proceedings for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Single Judge Determination of Amended Notice of Motion
Outcome
Amended notice of motion dismissed; Ms Samootin ordered to pay costs on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
['stay Pending Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'special Leave to Appeal' 'indemnity Costs' 'costs Assessment']
['civil Procedure' 'appellate Procedure' 'costs'] ['stay Pending Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'special Leave to Appeal' 'indemnity Costs' 'costs Assessment']

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

Application for Stays of Judgments and Costs Orders by Amended Notice of Motion in Court of Appeal Proceedings for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Single Judge Determination of Amended Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should stay various judgments, costs orders, costs assessments and proceedings pending Ms Samootin's application for leave to appeal and applications for special leave to appeal to the High Court." "Whether Ms Samootin had any real prospect of overturning Palmer J's decision or obtaining special leave to appeal from various Court of Appeal decisions." 'Whether the amended notice of motion was misconceived or unsupported, including where there was nothing to stay, no service on affected parties, or no sufficient basis for a stay.' 'Whether costs of the amended notice of motion should be ordered on an indemnity basis.']

Ratio Decidendi

The amended notice of motion was dismissed because Ms Samootin had not shown any real prospect of obtaining leave, special leave, or appellate relief that would overturn Palmer J's substantive decision or the many costs orders; many of the matters identified involved nothing to stay, were procedurally irregular, affected parties had not been served, or were otherwise unsupported. The application was in large part misconceived and wholly without substance, warranting indemnity costs.

Court Disposition

Amended notice of motion dismissed; Ms Samootin ordered to pay costs on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • ['The amended notice of motion be dismissed.' 'Ms Samootin pay the costs thereof on an indemnity basis.']