Wecker v Davison [2020] NSWSC 459
The amended summons was incompetent because an appeal from the relevant orders must be brought in the Court of Appeal, not in the Common Law Division. Plaintiff's reliance on Part 50 UCPR and s 101(2)(r) was misconceived. The proper procedure had been previously clearly explained to the plaintiff.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 27 April 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application to Dismiss Appeal and for Costs
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's amended summons dismissed. Plaintiff to pay first defendant's costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['appeals' 'time Limits' 'jurisdiction' 'costs']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application to Dismiss Appeal and for Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether appeal against Division order appropriately commenced in Common Law Division or should be brought in the Court of Appeal' 'Whether Part 50 UCPR applies to appeal in this case' 'Whether plaintiff is out of time under Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)' 'Whether proceedings were frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process']
Ratio Decidendi
The amended summons was incompetent because an appeal from the relevant orders must be brought in the Court of Appeal, not in the Common Law Division. Plaintiff's reliance on Part 50 UCPR and s 101(2)(r) was misconceived. The proper procedure had been previously clearly explained to the plaintiff.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's amended summons dismissed. Plaintiff to pay first defendant's costs.
Orders
- ["The plaintiff's amended summons commencing an appeal filed on 25 February 2020 is dismissed." "The plaintiff is to pay the first defendant's costs of this application and of the amended summons filed on 25 February 2020 as agreed or assessed."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment