Wentworth v Graham & 1 Ors [2002] NSWCA 399

Wentworth v Graham & 1 Ors [2002] NSWCA 399

The Registrar was entitled to summarily dismiss the Notice of Motion as an abuse of process because the decisions sought to be reviewed were not appealable under s46(2) or s46(4) Supreme Court Act 1970, and there was no power for the Registrar to review decisions made by a Judge of Appeal; furthermore, interlocutory refusals to recuse and associated evidentiary rulings do not constitute appealable orders, and repeated applications constitute an abuse of process.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Review of Registrar's Determination / Notice of Motion to Set Aside Registrar's Decision
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
["review of Registrar's Determination" 'disqualification for Bias or Apprehended Bias' 'procedural Abuse of Process' 'interlocutory Orders' 'appeals Procedure']
['practice and Procedure'] ["review of Registrar's Determination" 'disqualification for Bias or Apprehended Bias' 'procedural Abuse of Process' 'interlocutory Orders' 'appeals Procedure']

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

Review of Registrar's Determination / Notice of Motion to Set Aside Registrar's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Registrar's decision dismissing the application for leave to appeal against a Judge's refusal to recuse himself was reviewable" 'Whether the decisions by Brownie AJA not to recuse himself, and not to admit evidence, constitute orders or directions capable of appeal under s46(2)(b) and s46(4) Supreme Court Act 1970' 'Whether the Registrar had power to make the orders sought by the Applicant' 'Whether instant appeals from refusals to recuse should be permitted']

Ratio Decidendi

The Registrar was entitled to summarily dismiss the Notice of Motion as an abuse of process because the decisions sought to be reviewed were not appealable under s46(2) or s46(4) Supreme Court Act 1970, and there was no power for the Registrar to review decisions made by a Judge of Appeal; furthermore, interlocutory refusals to recuse and associated evidentiary rulings do not constitute appealable orders, and repeated applications constitute an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed

Orders

  • ['Notice of Motion dismissed']