El-Saeidy v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (No 2) [2019] NSWCA 297

El-Saeidy v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (No 2) [2019] NSWCA 297

The application to vacate the hearing was dismissed because none of the asserted grounds justified delaying the judicial review hearing. The application to amend the summons was rejected because it was made far too late, was unsupported by evidence that an application to state a case had been made, and was unsupported by any identified material question of law.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Procedural Rulings on Application to Vacate Hearing and Application to Amend Summons in the Course of the Hearing
Outcome
The application to vacate the hearing was dismissed and the application to amend the summons was rejected.
Legal Topics
['vacation of Hearing Date' 'amendment of Summons' 'refusal to State a Case to the Court of Criminal Appeal' 'material Question of Law']
['civil Procedure' 'judicial Review' 'criminal Procedure'] ['vacation of Hearing Date' 'amendment of Summons' 'refusal to State a Case to the Court of Criminal Appeal' 'material Question of Law']

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

Judicial Review / Procedural Rulings on Application to Vacate Hearing and Application to Amend Summons in the Course of the Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the hearing date for the judicial review application should be vacated.' 'Whether the applicant should be permitted during the hearing to amend the summons to challenge an alleged refusal to state a case to the Court of Criminal Appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vacate the hearing was dismissed because none of the asserted grounds justified delaying the judicial review hearing. The application to amend the summons was rejected because it was made far too late, was unsupported by evidence that an application to state a case had been made, and was unsupported by any identified material question of law.

Court Disposition

The application to vacate the hearing was dismissed and the application to amend the summons was rejected.

Orders

  • ['The application to vacate the hearing is dismissed.' 'The application to amend the summons is rejected.']