M1 v R1 [2024] NSWCA 256

M1 v R1 [2024] NSWCA 256

No reviewable error was established in the orders of the District Court; the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for delay, did not demonstrate procedural unfairness, bias, or jurisdictional error, and his grounds lacked merit or public interest. The costs orders were within the court’s powers and appropriately reasoned. Accordingly, the application for extension of time is refused with costs.

Parties
Applicant: M1; First Respondent: R1; Second Respondent: Jan Worland; Third Respondent: District Court of NSW
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Application for Extension of Time and Review of Primary Judgment and Costs Judgment
Outcome
Extension of time to file the amended summons is refused with costs.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Judicial Review, Summary Dismissal, Costs—gross Sum Orders, Procedural Fairness, Implied Undertaking—use of Documents, Recusal and Apprehended Bias
Civil Procedure Defamation Extension of Time Judicial Review Summary Dismissal Costs—gross Sum Orders Procedural Fairness Implied Undertaking—use of Documents +1 more

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 7 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M1

Applicant

R1

First Respondent

Jan Worland

Second Respondent

District Court of NSW

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review / Application for Extension of Time and Review of Primary Judgment and Costs Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time for judicial review of District Court orders
  2. 2 Whether there was a reviewable error in the District Court’s summary dismissal of the defamation proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the District Court’s costs order as a gross sum was valid

Ratio Decidendi

No reviewable error was established in the orders of the District Court; the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for delay, did not demonstrate procedural unfairness, bias, or jurisdictional error, and his grounds lacked merit or public interest. The costs orders were within the court’s powers and appropriately reasoned. Accordingly, the application for extension of time is refused with costs.

Court Disposition

Extension of time to file the amended summons is refused with costs.

Orders

  • The extension of time to file the summons, which was amended pursuant to leave granted on 4 August 2024, is refused with costs.