Marium v Van Zuylen [2024] NSWSC 258

Marium v Van Zuylen [2024] NSWSC 258

Leave was not required to amend or replace CANs; particulars provided in CAN and police fact sheets were adequate and complied with legislative requirements and case law; no abuse of process was demonstrated; permanent stay not warranted; summons dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Prerogative Relief / Judgment on Summons Seeking Permanent Stay and Other Relief; Dismissal of Summons
Outcome
Summons dismissed; permanent stay refused; costs awarded against plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['stay of Proceedings' 'court Attendance Notice (can)' 'particulars of Offence' 'abuse of Process' 'permanent Stay']

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

Application for Prerogative Relief / Judgment on Summons Seeking Permanent Stay and Other Relief; Dismissal of Summons

  1. 1 ['Whether prosecutor needed leave to amend Court Attendance Notice (CAN)' 'Adequacy of particulars in Court Attendance Notice' 'Whether multiple CANs constituted an abuse of process' 'Grounds for permanent stay of criminal proceedings']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was not required to amend or replace CANs; particulars provided in CAN and police fact sheets were adequate and complied with legislative requirements and case law; no abuse of process was demonstrated; permanent stay not warranted; summons dismissed.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; permanent stay refused; costs awarded against plaintiff.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to r 6.29 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) the third and fourth defendants are removed as parties to the proceedings.' "Dismiss the second defendant's notice of motion filed 16 June 2023." 'Dismiss the summons.' "Plaintiff to pay second defendant's costs."]