Lawrance v. Hodges [2005] NSWCA 70

Lawrance v. Hodges [2005] NSWCA 70

The application had to be dismissed because the only proceedings commenced by the claimant in the Court of Appeal to challenge Smart AJ's decision were proceedings by summons for leave to appeal, and those proceedings had been dismissed by the Court on 10 December 2004. That decision could not be set aside by the present Court, Registrar Schell, or Santow JA. Santow JA's costs order was an ordinary costs-follow-the-event order and disclosed no error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion Seeking Review Under S.46(4) of the Supreme Court Act / Court of Appeal Hearing After Santow JA Dismissed the Claimant's Application to Overturn Registrar Schell's Refusal to Restore the Matter and Give It a Hearing Date
Outcome
Claimant's Notice of Motion filed 25 February 2005 dismissed. No order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['application for Leave to Appeal' 'appeal as of Right' 'extension of Time' 'dismissed Leave Application' 'subpoena Non Compliance' 'costs of Solicitor Litigant']
['appeal Procedure' 'contempt' 'costs'] ['application for Leave to Appeal' 'appeal as of Right' 'extension of Time' 'dismissed Leave Application' 'subpoena Non Compliance' 'costs of Solicitor Litigant']

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

Notice of Motion Seeking Review Under S.46(4) of the Supreme Court Act / Court of Appeal Hearing After Santow JA Dismissed the Claimant's Application to Overturn Registrar Schell's Refusal to Restore the Matter and Give It a Hearing Date

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the claimant's notice of motion should be dismissed because the only Court of Appeal proceedings challenging Smart AJ's decision were leave proceedings already dismissed on 10 December 2004." "Whether the claimant had an appeal as of right from Smart AJ's order striking out contempt proceedings." "Whether Santow JA's costs order should be reversed."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application had to be dismissed because the only proceedings commenced by the claimant in the Court of Appeal to challenge Smart AJ's decision were proceedings by summons for leave to appeal, and those proceedings had been dismissed by the Court on 10 December 2004. That decision could not be set aside by the present Court, Registrar Schell, or Santow JA. Santow JA's costs order was an ordinary costs-follow-the-event order and disclosed no error.

Court Disposition

Claimant's Notice of Motion filed 25 February 2005 dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • ["Claimant's Notice of Motion filed 25 February 2005 dismissed." 'No order as to costs.']