Hammond v State of New South Wales [2015] NSWCA 304

Hammond v State of New South Wales [2015] NSWCA 304

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal had no prospects: the primary judge made no error in holding that the statement of claim disclosed no arguable cause of action against the State or the Commonwealth and that the proceedings were an abuse of process, as they sought to re-litigate matters already determined adversely to the applicants by collateral attacks on exercises of judicial power. No arguable duty of care was owed by the State or Commonwealth as alleged, no legally enforceable Commonwealth duty existed to review judicial decisions outside ordinary appeal processes, no actionable intentional tort by the judicial officers was identified, and therefore no vicarious...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Summons Seeking an Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders Summarily Dismissing Proceedings
Outcome
Summons seeking an extension of time and leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'abuse of Process' 'collateral Attack on Exercises of Judicial Power' 'res Judicata and Issue Estoppel' 'vicarious Liability' 'duty of Care' 'separation of Powers']
['civil Procedure' 'torts' 'judicial Immunity' 'constitutional Law'] ['summary Dismissal' 'leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'abuse of Process' 'collateral Attack on Exercises of Judicial Power' 'res Judicata and Issue Estoppel' 'vicarious Liability' 'duty of Care' 'separation of Powers']

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

Summons Seeking an Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders Summarily Dismissing Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants should be granted an extension of time and leave to appeal from orders summarily dismissing their proceedings.' 'Whether the amended statement of claim disclosed an arguable cause of action against the State of New South Wales or the Commonwealth of Australia.' 'Whether the proceedings were an abuse of process because they sought to re-agitate matters already determined adversely to the applicants by attacking exercises of judicial power.' 'Whether the State or the Commonwealth owed the alleged duties of care to the applicants.' 'Whether the State was vicariously liable under the Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983 (NSW) for alleged intentional torts by judicial officers and registrars.' 'Whether the primary judge erred in rejecting allegations of apprehended bias, procedural unfairness, and errors concerning judicial immunity and costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal had no prospects: the primary judge made no error in holding that the statement of claim disclosed no arguable cause of action against the State or the Commonwealth and that the proceedings were an abuse of process, as they sought to re-litigate matters already determined adversely to the applicants by collateral attacks on exercises of judicial power. No arguable duty of care was owed by the State or Commonwealth as alleged, no legally enforceable Commonwealth duty existed to review judicial decisions outside ordinary appeal processes, no actionable intentional tort by the judicial officers was identified, and therefore no vicarious...

Court Disposition

Summons seeking an extension of time and leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Summons seeking an extension of time and leave to appeal be dismissed with costs.']