Ballantyne v Riemer & Anor [2003] NSWSC 82

Ballantyne v Riemer & Anor [2003] NSWSC 82

The application for a Suitors' Fund certificate in relation to the Supreme Court hearing was dismissed because Ms McGarritty's legal representative was complicit in the denial of procedural fairness to Mr Ballantyne when the Local Court costs order was made, and that conduct was attributable to Ms McGarritty for the purposes of the application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Local Court; Costs Application for Suitors' Fund Certificate / Judgment (costs) on the Second Respondent's Application for Reconsideration After the Appeal Was Allowed in Part
Outcome
Application for a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 dismissed; order 4 made on 2 December 2002 corrected under the slip rule.
Legal Topics
["suitors' Fund Certificate" 'procedural Fairness' 'slip Rule' 'appeal From Local Court']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ["suitors' Fund Certificate" 'procedural Fairness' 'slip Rule' 'appeal From Local Court']

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

Appeal From Local Court; Costs Application for Suitors' Fund Certificate / Judgment (costs) on the Second Respondent's Application for Reconsideration After the Appeal Was Allowed in Part

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the second respondent should be granted a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 in relation to the proceedings before the Supreme Court." "Whether the second respondent's legal representative was complicit in the denial of procedural fairness to the appellant in the Local Court costs determination." 'Whether order 4 made on 2 December 2002 should be corrected under the slip rule.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a Suitors' Fund certificate in relation to the Supreme Court hearing was dismissed because Ms McGarritty's legal representative was complicit in the denial of procedural fairness to Mr Ballantyne when the Local Court costs order was made, and that conduct was attributable to Ms McGarritty for the purposes of the application.

Court Disposition

Application for a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 dismissed; order 4 made on 2 December 2002 corrected under the slip rule.

Orders

  • ["The application for a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 in relation to the hearing of the proceedings before the Court is dismissed." 'Order 4 made on 2 December 2002 is corrected by substituting: "The second respondent to have a certificate under the Suitors\' Fund Act 1951 in relation to the appeal...