Clark v The State of New South Wales (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 347

Clark v The State of New South Wales (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 347

The plaintiff had already received a full hearing and further opportunities to make submissions before judgment. His present application sought to re-agitate matters already argued, raise new matters that should have been raised earlier, or challenge the merits of the judgment in a way properly suited to appeal. This was not an appropriate case for exercising the power under rule 36.16(3A) to set aside, vary or re-open the judgment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Application to Set Aside, Vary or Re Open Judgment or Order / Notice of Motion After the Plaintiff's Summons Had Been Dismissed; Application Treated as Made Under Part 36 Rule 16 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules NSW (2005)
Outcome
Application to set aside, vary or re-open is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['application to Re Open Case' 'setting Aside or Variation of Judgment or Order' 'finality of Litigation' 'unrepresented Litigant in Custody']
['civil Procedure'] ['application to Re Open Case' 'setting Aside or Variation of Judgment or Order' 'finality of Litigation' 'unrepresented Litigant in Custody']

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 Application to Set Aside, Vary or Re Open Judgment or Order / Notice of Motion After the Plaintiff's Summons Had Been Dismissed; Application Treated as Made Under Part 36 Rule 16 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules NSW (2005)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's notice of motion should be treated as an application under rule 36.16 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules NSW (2005)." 'Whether the power to set aside, vary or re-open the judgment should be exercised where the plaintiff sought to re-agitate matters already argued, raise new matters, or conduct a merits review of the judgment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff had already received a full hearing and further opportunities to make submissions before judgment. His present application sought to re-agitate matters already argued, raise new matters that should have been raised earlier, or challenge the merits of the judgment in a way properly suited to appeal. This was not an appropriate case for exercising the power under rule 36.16(3A) to set aside, vary or re-open the judgment.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside, vary or re-open is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for the Court to set aside or vary the order or to re-open the case is dismissed.']