Wentworth v Graham & Anor [2002] NSWCA 397

Wentworth v Graham & Anor [2002] NSWCA 397

There was no inconsistency between s46(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 and Pt 61 rr3 and 4 of the Supreme Court Rules because the s46(4) jurisdiction to discharge or vary and the Pt 61 power to review Registrar decisions are distinct, concurrent powers. Accordingly, a single Judge of Appeal could exercise jurisdiction under Pt 61 rr3 and 4 to review the Registrar's decision in a case within the ambit of those rules.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Application to Review a Registrar's Decision / Ex Parte Hearing Before a Single Judge of Appeal on Jurisdiction to Review Under Pt 61 Rr3 and 4 of the Supreme Court Rules
Outcome
The Court was satisfied that there was no impediment under s46(4) or otherwise to a single Judge of Appeal exercising jurisdiction to review the Registrar's decision under Pt 61 rr3 and 4 of the Supreme Court Rules.
Legal Topics
['court of Appeal Procedure' "review of Registrar's Decision" 'jurisdiction of Single Judge of Appeal' 'supreme Court Rules and Supreme Court Act Consistency']
['practice and Procedure'] ['court of Appeal Procedure' "review of Registrar's Decision" 'jurisdiction of Single Judge of Appeal' 'supreme Court Rules and Supreme Court Act Consistency']

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

Application to Review a Registrar's Decision / Ex Parte Hearing Before a Single Judge of Appeal on Jurisdiction to Review Under Pt 61 Rr3 and 4 of the Supreme Court Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Pt 61 rr3 and 4 of the Supreme Court Rules is inconsistent with s46(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1970.' 'Whether a single Judge of Appeal has jurisdiction to review a decision of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal under Pt 61 rr3 and 4 of the Supreme Court Rules.']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no inconsistency between s46(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 and Pt 61 rr3 and 4 of the Supreme Court Rules because the s46(4) jurisdiction to discharge or vary and the Pt 61 power to review Registrar decisions are distinct, concurrent powers. Accordingly, a single Judge of Appeal could exercise jurisdiction under Pt 61 rr3 and 4 to review the Registrar's decision in a case within the ambit of those rules.

Court Disposition

The Court was satisfied that there was no impediment under s46(4) or otherwise to a single Judge of Appeal exercising jurisdiction to review the Registrar's decision under Pt 61 rr3 and 4 of the Supreme Court Rules.

Orders

  • []