Monteiro v State of New South Wales (No 4) [2016] NSWSC 1626

Monteiro v State of New South Wales (No 4) [2016] NSWSC 1626

Mr Monteiro's amended May 2016 motion was struck out for want of due despatch as he had not pursued it despite ample opportunity and extension of time, the claims about judges were deemed frivolous, vexatious, and scandalous, and costs were awarded to the Commissioner as the successful party.

Parties
Plaintiff: Simon Monteiro; First Defendant: State of New South Wales; Second Defendant: Attorney General of NSW; Third Defendant: Commissioner of Corrective Services NSW; Fourth Defendant: Corrective Services NSW; Fifth Defendant: GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd; Sixth Defendant: Justice Health; Seventh Defendant: Legal Aid Commission; Eighth Defendant: Law Access New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Interlocutory Decision on Amended Notice of Motion and Costs
Outcome
Mr Monteiro's amended May 2016 motion struck out; costs awarded to Commissioner
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Prison Law, Striking Out Pleadings, Costs
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Prison Law Striking Out Pleadings Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Monteiro

Plaintiff

State of New South Wales

First Defendant

Attorney General of NSW

Second Defendant

Commissioner of Corrective Services NSW

Third Defendant

Corrective Services NSW

Fourth Defendant

GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd

Fifth Defendant

Justice Health

Sixth Defendant

Legal Aid Commission

Seventh Defendant

Law Access New South Wales

Eighth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Interlocutory Decision on Amended Notice of Motion and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Monteiro's amended May 2016 motion should be struck out for want of due dispatch
  2. 2 Whether an application for pro bono legal assistance should be granted
  3. 3 Whether certain claims in the motion are frivolous, vexatious, or scandalous

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Monteiro's amended May 2016 motion was struck out for want of due despatch as he had not pursued it despite ample opportunity and extension of time, the claims about judges were deemed frivolous, vexatious, and scandalous, and costs were awarded to the Commissioner as the successful party.

Court Disposition

Mr Monteiro's amended May 2016 motion struck out; costs awarded to Commissioner

Orders

  • Mr Monteiro's amended May 2016 motion is struck out.
  • Mr Monteiro must bear the Commissioner's costs of the motions as agreed or assessed.