Vangu Kitoko v State of New South Wales [2021] NSWSC 545

Vangu Kitoko v State of New South Wales [2021] NSWSC 545

The amended summons did not disclose an arguable jurisdictional error or error of law in the Prothonotary's decision. The first ground relied on delay that occurred after the decision under review and could not support review of that decision; the remaining grounds did not identify a viable error in the Prothonotary's decision. The plaintiff had not been denied procedural fairness, had notice of the State's motion and submissions, and had an opportunity to respond. The high threshold for summary dismissal was met, so the proceedings were dismissed under UCPR r 13.4.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Proceedings / Notice of Motion for Summary Dismissal and Plaintiff's Notice of Motion
Outcome
The first defendant's notice of motion was granted, the judicial review proceedings were summarily dismissed, the plaintiff's notice of motion was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the first defendant's costs.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'fee Relief Application' 'procedural Fairness' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 13.4']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['summary Dismissal' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'fee Relief Application' 'procedural Fairness' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 13.4']

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

Judicial Review Proceedings / Notice of Motion for Summary Dismissal and Plaintiff's Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the judicial review proceedings disclosed a reasonable cause of action or should be summarily dismissed under r 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).' "Whether alleged delay in a later fee accommodation application could establish jurisdictional error or error of law in the Prothonotary's earlier decision." "Whether the plaintiff was denied procedural fairness by the Court hearing the State's notice of motion without granting an adjournment for written submissions." "Whether the State's notice of motion was unlawful or could not be heard because of reliance on UCPR r 14.28."]

Ratio Decidendi

The amended summons did not disclose an arguable jurisdictional error or error of law in the Prothonotary's decision. The first ground relied on delay that occurred after the decision under review and could not support review of that decision; the remaining grounds did not identify a viable error in the Prothonotary's decision. The plaintiff had not been denied procedural fairness, had notice of the State's motion and submissions, and had an opportunity to respond. The high threshold for summary dismissal was met, so the proceedings were dismissed under UCPR r 13.4.

Court Disposition

The first defendant's notice of motion was granted, the judicial review proceedings were summarily dismissed, the plaintiff's notice of motion was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the first defendant's costs.

Orders

  • ["The first defendant's notice of motion dated 5 March 2021 is granted." 'The proceedings for judicial review commenced by amended summons filed on 18 February 2021 be summarily dismissed pursuant to r 13.4(1)(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).' "The plaintiff's notice of motion filed on 14 May 2021...