Martin v State of New South Wales (No 15) [2012] NSWCA 47

Martin v State of New South Wales (No 15) [2012] NSWCA 47

The motion failed because Mr Martin did not demonstrate that the orders were made or entered irregularly, illegally or against good faith within UCPR r 36.15(1), and he did not identify any legal error in the reasons of the courts below or this Court or any new legal argument that could provide an arguable basis for reopening the interlocutory orders. A Court of Appeal panel of two judges under s 46B could deal with matters within a single judge's powers, so the identified procedural challenge had no substance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Proceeding; Notice of Motion to Set Aside Judgments or Orders / Court of Appeal Motion Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw), R 36.15 and Inherent Power, Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Motion of 26 September 2011 dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['power of Judge of Appeal' 'constitution of Court of Appeal by Two Judges' 'setting Aside Judgments or Orders' 'interlocutory Orders' 'inherent Power to Reconsider Interlocutory Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'appeals'] ['power of Judge of Appeal' 'constitution of Court of Appeal by Two Judges' 'setting Aside Judgments or Orders' 'interlocutory Orders' 'inherent Power to Reconsider Interlocutory Orders']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Proceeding; Notice of Motion to Set Aside Judgments or Orders / Court of Appeal Motion Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw), R 36.15 and Inherent Power, Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether judgments or orders should be set aside under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 36.15 on the basis that they were made or entered irregularly, illegally or against good faith.' 'Whether the Court of Appeal constituted by two judges of appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 46B(1)(b) may exercise powers capable of being exercised by a single judge.' 'Whether the Court should exercise its inherent power to reconsider interlocutory orders.']

Ratio Decidendi

The motion failed because Mr Martin did not demonstrate that the orders were made or entered irregularly, illegally or against good faith within UCPR r 36.15(1), and he did not identify any legal error in the reasons of the courts below or this Court or any new legal argument that could provide an arguable basis for reopening the interlocutory orders. A Court of Appeal panel of two judges under s 46B could deal with matters within a single judge's powers, so the identified procedural challenge had no substance.

Court Disposition

Motion of 26 September 2011 dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Motion of 26 September 2011 dismissed with costs.']