Dibb v Transport for New South Wales (No 2) [2024] NSWCA 176

Dibb v Transport for New South Wales (No 2) [2024] NSWCA 176

The applicants did not identify any oversight, inadvertent misapprehension, or other proper basis for the exceptional exercise of power under UCPR r 36.16. Their contentions sought to re-agitate matters determined on the appeal, supplement earlier submissions, or express disagreement with the Court's reasons. They had been given a reasonable opportunity to be heard, the compulsory acquisition context did not displace the finality of the appeal, and there was no basis to revisit the appeal or cross-appeal costs order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion to Set Aside or Vary Judgment or Orders Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw), R 36.16 / Court of Appeal, on the Papers, After Dismissal of Appeal and Allowance of Cross Appeal
Outcome
The applicants' notice of motion was dismissed. As the respondent was not required to file submissions, there was to be no order as to the costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['setting Aside or Varying Judgments and Orders' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw), R 36.16' 'finality of Litigation' 'costs on Appeal' 'self Represented Litigants']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'compulsory Acquisition'] ['setting Aside or Varying Judgments and Orders' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw), R 36.16' 'finality of Litigation' 'costs on Appeal' 'self Represented Litigants']

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

Notice of Motion to Set Aside or Vary Judgment or Orders Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw), R 36.16 / Court of Appeal, on the Papers, After Dismissal of Appeal and Allowance of Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court's judgment on the appeal, or the judgment of the Land and Environment Court, should be set aside or varied under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 36.16." 'Whether the character of compulsory acquisition proceedings displaced the public interest in finality of litigation.' 'Whether the applicants had an adequate opportunity to present submissions on appeal.' 'Whether the Court should vary or revisit the costs order made on the appeal or permit further submissions on costs.' "Whether alleged misapprehensions of fact or law justified setting aside or varying the Court's judgment."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants did not identify any oversight, inadvertent misapprehension, or other proper basis for the exceptional exercise of power under UCPR r 36.16. Their contentions sought to re-agitate matters determined on the appeal, supplement earlier submissions, or express disagreement with the Court's reasons. They had been given a reasonable opportunity to be heard, the compulsory acquisition context did not displace the finality of the appeal, and there was no basis to revisit the appeal or cross-appeal costs order.

Court Disposition

The applicants' notice of motion was dismissed. As the respondent was not required to file submissions, there was to be no order as to the costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ["Dismiss the applicants' notice of motion filed on 12 July 2024."]