Fell v Chenhall [2018] NSWCA 260

Leave to appeal was refused as the applicant had no serious prospects of successfully challenging the decision below; Button J's judgment correctly applied the principles regarding filing and jurisdiction; further, policy against fragmentation of criminal proceedings supported refusal.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 07 November 2018
Procedural Posture: Application for Leave to Appeal and Stay / Interlocutory Appeal in Court of Appeal, Following Refused Appeal in Supreme Court
Outcome: Both Notice of Motion for a stay and Summons seeking leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics: ['application for Leave to Appeal' 'stay of Proceedings' 'jurisdiction' 'interpretation of Local Court Rules' 'fragmentation of Criminal Proceedings']

['criminal Law' 'procedure'] ['application for Leave to Appeal' 'stay of Proceedings' 'jurisdiction' 'interpretation of Local Court Rules' 'fragmentation of Criminal Proceedings']

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

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal and Stay / Interlocutory Appeal in Court of Appeal, Following Refused Appeal in Supreme Court

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether failure to comply with r 8.7(4) of Local Court Rules 2009 (NSW) renders proceedings a nullity' 'Proper construction and application of r 8.7(4)' 'Whether leave should be granted for appeal against interlocutory order refusing to dismiss proceedings for want of jurisdiction' 'Fragmentation of criminal proceedings']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Both Notice of Motion for a stay and Summons seeking leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.

Orders

["Mr Fell's Notice of Motion for a stay is dismissed with costs." "Mr Fell's Summons seeking leave to appeal is dismissed with costs."]