Hetherington-Gregory v Julie Foster trading as All Vehicle Services [2013] NSWCA 20

Hetherington-Gregory v Julie Foster trading as All Vehicle Services [2013] NSWCA 20

The applicant failed to show any error of principle or plainly wrong decision by Basten JA. The District Court's summary dismissal of the claims against the Motor Traders Association and the State was plainly correct because no viable cause of action was disclosed and any appeal would be doomed to fail. As leave to appeal and an extension of time were refused, the applicant's related motions were also dismissed, and the first respondent's removal motion was unnecessary because the application against her was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From District Court Decision, With Related Notices of Motion / Court of Appeal Hearing of Applications and Motions
Outcome
Applications for extension of time and for leave to appeal dismissed with costs; applicant's notices of motion dismissed; first respondent's motion dismissed as unnecessary; applicant ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of its motion.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'review of Single Judge Decision' 'summary Dismissal' 'certificate of Roadworthiness' 'vehicle Registration']
['appellate Procedure' 'civil Procedure' 'motor Vehicle Regulation'] ['leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'review of Single Judge Decision' 'summary Dismissal' 'certificate of Roadworthiness' 'vehicle Registration']

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 Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From District Court Decision, With Related Notices of Motion / Court of Appeal Hearing of Applications and Motions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether orders made by Basten JA should be discharged under s 46(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1973.' 'Whether the first respondent should be removed as a party to the application for leave to appeal.' "Whether leave to appeal and an extension of time should be granted from the District Court's summary dismissal of claims against the Motor Traders Association and the State." "Whether the applicant's notice of motion filed on 4 September 2012 should be granted."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to show any error of principle or plainly wrong decision by Basten JA. The District Court's summary dismissal of the claims against the Motor Traders Association and the State was plainly correct because no viable cause of action was disclosed and any appeal would be doomed to fail. As leave to appeal and an extension of time were refused, the applicant's related motions were also dismissed, and the first respondent's removal motion was unnecessary because the application against her was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications for extension of time and for leave to appeal dismissed with costs; applicant's notices of motion dismissed; first respondent's motion dismissed as unnecessary; applicant ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of its motion.

Orders

  • ["Dismiss with costs the applications for extension of time and for leave to appeal, and the applicant's notices of motion filed on 13 August and 4 September 2012." "Dismiss the first respondent's notice of motion filed on 15 August 2012 on the basis that the application against the first respondent for leave to...