Spencer v Bamber [2012] NSWCA 274

Spencer v Bamber [2012] NSWCA 274

The appeal failed because there was actual service of the notice on the appellant by means of email correspondence, which brought the notice to his attention as required under s 61(2)(d) Real Property Act 1900. The additional order made by the primary judge without procedural fairness was set aside, but all other orders were upheld, and no actual or apprehended bias was established.

Parties
Appellant: Peter James Spencer; First Respondent: Wayne Dennis Bamber; Second Respondent: Deneva Jean Bamber; Third Respondent: Registrar-General of New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; order for substituted service set aside; otherwise appeal dismissed; appellant to pay costs of first and second respondents.
Legal Topics
Foreclosure, Service of Documents, Substituted Service, Bias of Trial Judge, Amendment of Judgment, Appeal Procedure
Real Property Civil Procedure Equity Foreclosure Service of Documents Substituted Service Bias of Trial Judge Amendment of Judgment +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 47 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter James Spencer

Appellant

Wayne Dennis Bamber

First Respondent

Deneva Jean Bamber

Second Respondent

Registrar-General of New South Wales

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trial judge's decision was vitiated by actual or apprehended bias
  2. 2 Whether service of notice required by s 61(2)(d) Real Property Act 1900 was effective
  3. 3 Whether appellate court should set aside orders on basis of procedural fairness or error in service

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because there was actual service of the notice on the appellant by means of email correspondence, which brought the notice to his attention as required under s 61(2)(d) Real Property Act 1900. The additional order made by the primary judge without procedural fairness was set aside, but all other orders were upheld, and no actual or apprehended bias was established.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; order for substituted service set aside; otherwise appeal dismissed; appellant to pay costs of first and second respondents.

Orders

  • Set aside the order numbered (1) purportedly made in the court below on 26 October 2011.
  • Otherwise, appeal dismissed.