Bortolin v State Debt Recovery Office [2008] NSWSC 1007

Bortolin v State Debt Recovery Office [2008] NSWSC 1007

The SDRO was entitled under s 100 of the Fines Act 1996 to alter instalment amounts due to the increased number of enforcement orders, and the plaintiff's statement of claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action; therefore, the claim was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Summary Judgment/strike Out Application
Outcome
Statement of claim dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['strike Out Applications' 'summary Judgment' 'fines Enforcement' 'time to Pay Orders']
['administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['strike Out Applications' 'summary Judgment' 'fines Enforcement' 'time to Pay Orders']

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

Civil / Summary Judgment/strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Does the State Debt Recovery Office have the power to alter repayment arrangements for enforcement orders under the Fines Act 1996?' "Does the plaintiff's statement of claim disclose a reasonable cause of action or is it doomed to fail?"]

Ratio Decidendi

The SDRO was entitled under s 100 of the Fines Act 1996 to alter instalment amounts due to the increased number of enforcement orders, and the plaintiff's statement of claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action; therefore, the claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Statement of claim dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Order one (1) of the notice of motion filed 23 June 2008 is made.' "The plaintiff's statement of claim filed 7 May 2008 is dismissed." 'There be no order as to costs.']