GR v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2021] NSWCA 52

GR v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2021] NSWCA 52

The Court declined a concurrent hearing because the leave issues could be resolved without full appeal argument, but expedited the leave hearing so it could occur before the fixed statutory appeal. The stay of the final care orders was refused for the reasons previously given by Basten and McCallum JJA and because such a stay would be futile. The application to set aside Sackar J's interlocutory orders could not be determined on the motion because those orders were themselves the subject of the leave application. As GR failed to obtain the substantive relief sought, she was ordered to pay the first and second respondents' costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal and Notice of Motion / Motion Seeking Concurrent Hearing of Leave Application and Appeal, Expedition, Stay of Final Care Orders, and Setting Aside of Orders Below
Outcome
Motion partly allowed only to expedite the hearing of the summons for leave to appeal; all other requested relief dismissed; applicant ordered to pay first and second respondents' costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'expedition' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'final Care Orders' 'guardian Ad Litem' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'appellate Procedure' 'child Protection'] ['leave to Appeal' 'expedition' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'final Care Orders' 'guardian Ad Litem' 'costs']

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

Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal and Notice of Motion / Motion Seeking Concurrent Hearing of Leave Application and Appeal, Expedition, Stay of Final Care Orders, and Setting Aside of Orders Below

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the summons for leave to appeal and any appeal should be heard concurrently and expedited.' "Whether the final care orders made by the Children's Court on 3 April 2020 should be stayed pending determination of the appeal proceedings." 'Whether the interlocutory orders made by Sackar J on 17 November 2020 should be set aside on the motion.' "Whether the applicant should pay the first and second respondents' costs of the motion."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court declined a concurrent hearing because the leave issues could be resolved without full appeal argument, but expedited the leave hearing so it could occur before the fixed statutory appeal. The stay of the final care orders was refused for the reasons previously given by Basten and McCallum JJA and because such a stay would be futile. The application to set aside Sackar J's interlocutory orders could not be determined on the motion because those orders were themselves the subject of the leave application. As GR failed to obtain the substantive relief sought, she was ordered to pay the first and second respondents' costs.

Court Disposition

Motion partly allowed only to expedite the hearing of the summons for leave to appeal; all other requested relief dismissed; applicant ordered to pay first and second respondents' costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['Direct the hearing of the summons for leave to appeal filed 23 March 2021 be expedited.' 'Otherwise dismiss the application for the orders sought in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the motion.' 'Dismiss the application for the order sought in paragraph 3 of the motion.' 'Dismiss the application for the order sought in...