El-Saeidy v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2017] NSWCA 211

El-Saeidy v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2017] NSWCA 211

No arguable case for intervention was demonstrated and practical relief would be futile; the applicant failed to show any error or legal basis on which Supreme Court should interfere in interlocutory matters of the District Court appeal.

Parties
Applicant: Fawzi El-Saeidy; First Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW); Second Respondent: District Court of NSW
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Supervisory Summons / Interlocutory Application; Motion to Stay Lower Court Appeal
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed; parties redirected for proper identification; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Supervisory Jurisdiction, Stay of Proceedings, Adjournment, District Court Appeals
Procedure Supervisory Jurisdiction Stay of Proceedings Adjournment District Court Appeals

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fawzi El-Saeidy

Applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)

First Respondent

District Court of NSW

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Supervisory Summons / Interlocutory Application; Motion to Stay Lower Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is an arguable case for relief in the supervisory jurisdiction to stay District Court appeal
  2. 2 Whether relief sought is futile
  3. 3 Whether District Court's refusal of adjournment or access to file involves jurisdictional error

Ratio Decidendi

No arguable case for intervention was demonstrated and practical relief would be futile; the applicant failed to show any error or legal basis on which Supreme Court should interfere in interlocutory matters of the District Court appeal.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed; parties redirected for proper identification; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Direct that the first-named respondent (Judge Colefax) and third-named respondent (Ms Wills) be removed as respondents.
  • Direct that the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) be the first respondent.