Regan v Commissioner of NSW Police [2024] NSWSC 883

Regan v Commissioner of NSW Police [2024] NSWSC 883

The summons was clearly deficient because it did not comply with r 59.4(c) UCPR: the grounds failed to identify which Industrial Relations Commission decisions were challenged, failed to identify with precision the evidence, process errors or findings complained of, and failed to identify jurisdictional error. Although the Court was not persuaded to dismiss the proceedings under r 13.4 UCPR, the summons did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and was struck out under r 14.28 UCPR.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Summons for Judicial Review / Procedural Ruling on Plaintiff's Application to Vacate Hearing and Defendants' Application Concerning Summons
Outcome
Plaintiff's application to vacate the hearing refused; summons struck out; costs ordered for the first defendant; plaintiff barred from filing a further summons without leave of the Court.
Legal Topics
['failure to Comply With R 59.4(c) Ucpr' 'jurisdictional Error' 'strike Out of Summons' 'costs' 'leave Required for Further Summons']
['practice and Procedure' 'judicial Review' 'industrial Relations'] ['failure to Comply With R 59.4(c) Ucpr' 'jurisdictional Error' 'strike Out of Summons' 'costs' 'leave Required for Further Summons']

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

Summons for Judicial Review / Procedural Ruling on Plaintiff's Application to Vacate Hearing and Defendants' Application Concerning Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's summons for judicial review complied with r 59.4(c) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) by stating with specificity the grounds on which relief was sought." 'Whether the summons identified jurisdictional error in the Industrial Relations Commission decisions sufficient for review having regard to s 179(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW).' 'Whether the summons should be dismissed under r 13.4 UCPR or struck out under r 14.28 UCPR.' 'Whether the plaintiff should be restrained from filing a further summons without leave of the Court.']

Ratio Decidendi

The summons was clearly deficient because it did not comply with r 59.4(c) UCPR: the grounds failed to identify which Industrial Relations Commission decisions were challenged, failed to identify with precision the evidence, process errors or findings complained of, and failed to identify jurisdictional error. Although the Court was not persuaded to dismiss the proceedings under r 13.4 UCPR, the summons did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and was struck out under r 14.28 UCPR.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application to vacate the hearing refused; summons struck out; costs ordered for the first defendant; plaintiff barred from filing a further summons without leave of the Court.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's application to vacate the hearing is refused." "The plaintiff's summons filed on 22 February 2024 is struck out in accordance with Rule 14.28 UCPR." "The plaintiff is to pay the first defendant's costs." 'The plaintiff is not to file a further summons without leave of the Court. The Court notes...