Gillies v District Court of New South Wales [2014] NSWCA 357

Gillies v District Court of New South Wales [2014] NSWCA 357

The summons was misconceived because it failed to disclose any relevant or reasonable cause of action, identified no statutory right of appeal, and did not properly articulate any decision or ground capable of judicial review. The applicant's prospects of establishing otherwise were unrealistic to the point of non-existence, so the summons was manifestly groundless and appropriate for summary dismissal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Summary Dismissal And/or Strike Out of Summons / Notice of Motion by the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents Seeking Dismissal or Striking Out of the Applicant's Summons
Outcome
Summons dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the second, third and fourth respondents' costs.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'strike Out' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'manifestly Groundless Proceedings' 'want of Prosecution' 'access to Court Sound Recordings and Transcripts' 'government Information Access']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure' 'judicial Review' 'criminal Procedure'] ['summary Dismissal' 'strike Out' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'manifestly Groundless Proceedings' 'want of Prosecution' 'access to Court Sound Recordings and Transcripts' 'government Information Access']

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 Summary Dismissal And/or Strike Out of Summons / Notice of Motion by the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents Seeking Dismissal or Striking Out of the Applicant's Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's summons should be dismissed or struck out for want of prosecution, failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action, or tendency to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay." 'Whether the summons identified any statutory right of appeal to the Court of Appeal.' 'Whether the summons properly sought judicial review of any administrative decision amenable to relief under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW).' 'Whether the applicant had established any basis for orders requiring production, preservation, return, investigation or transfer of materials held by the District Court, the DPP or the Judicial Commission.']

Ratio Decidendi

The summons was misconceived because it failed to disclose any relevant or reasonable cause of action, identified no statutory right of appeal, and did not properly articulate any decision or ground capable of judicial review. The applicant's prospects of establishing otherwise were unrealistic to the point of non-existence, so the summons was manifestly groundless and appropriate for summary dismissal.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the second, third and fourth respondents' costs.

Orders

  • ['The summons filed by the applicant on 18 December 2013, as amended, be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the second, third and fourth respondents' costs of the summons and of the notice of motion filed on 31 March 2014."]