Visser v New South Wales Crime Commission [2013] NSWCA 467

Visser v New South Wales Crime Commission [2013] NSWCA 467

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants identified no arguable error in the trial judge's dismissal of the motion to set aside the consent orders. The alleged payment to Mr Standen, even if proved, could not support relief under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW); there was no evidentiary basis to disturb the finding that Mr Visser authorised Mr Croke to sign the consent orders; and Ms Lewis identified no arguable basis to disturb the finding that she did not sign under duress and understood the document. The adjournment application was refused as belated and unsupported by any realistic prospect of legal aid.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From Dismissal of Motion to Set Aside Consent Orders
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; third applicant removed as applicant and joined as second respondent; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['consent Orders' 'contracts Review Act 1980 (nsw)' 'application for Leave to Appeal' 'adjournment' 'legal Aid' 'parties' 'tutor for Child Applicant' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal']
['contract' 'civil Procedure' 'criminal Assets Recovery'] ['consent Orders' 'contracts Review Act 1980 (nsw)' 'application for Leave to Appeal' 'adjournment' 'legal Aid' 'parties' 'tutor for Child Applicant' '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

Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From Dismissal of Motion to Set Aside Consent Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the application for leave to appeal should be adjourned to allow the applicants to seek legal aid.' 'Whether Sharnielle Visser-Lewis should remain an applicant where her interests were not adversely affected and there was a conflict with the proposed tutor.' 'Whether alleged payment of $120,000 to Mr Standen could support relief under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW).' 'Whether Mr Croke signed the consent orders on behalf of Mr Visser without authority.' 'Whether Ms Lewis signed the consent orders under duress and without understanding their import.' 'Whether any arguable error by the trial judge justified leave to appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants identified no arguable error in the trial judge's dismissal of the motion to set aside the consent orders. The alleged payment to Mr Standen, even if proved, could not support relief under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW); there was no evidentiary basis to disturb the finding that Mr Visser authorised Mr Croke to sign the consent orders; and Ms Lewis identified no arguable basis to disturb the finding that she did not sign under duress and understood the document. The adjournment application was refused as belated and unsupported by any realistic prospect of legal aid.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; third applicant removed as applicant and joined as second respondent; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Order that the third applicant be removed from the proceedings as an applicant and be joined as the second respondent.' 'Dismiss the application for leave to appeal.']