Alfaro v Mark White, Director, Office of State Revenue & Ors [2017] NSWCA 198
There was no arguable error in the primary judge's decision to strike out paragraphs of the applicant's statement of claim due to failure to plead material facts giving rise to a cause of action; there was no denial of procedural fairness; and the District Court had no power to order reinstatement of the applicant's driver licence, thus leave to appeal was refused.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 03 August 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal / Decision on Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['leave to Appeal' 'striking Out Pleadings' 'joinder of Parties' 'procedural Fairness' 'conspiracy' 'misfeasance in Public Office' 'vicarious Liability']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Decision on Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the primary judge erred by striking out paragraphs of the applicant's statement of claim but with liberty to re-plead" "Whether the District Court had power to reinstate the applicant's driver licence" 'Whether there was denial of procedural fairness to the applicant']
Ratio Decidendi
There was no arguable error in the primary judge's decision to strike out paragraphs of the applicant's statement of claim due to failure to plead material facts giving rise to a cause of action; there was no denial of procedural fairness; and the District Court had no power to order reinstatement of the applicant's driver licence, thus leave to appeal was refused.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- ['Summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed with costs.']
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