Wang v Botany View Hotel (No 2) [2017] NSWCA 298

Wang v Botany View Hotel (No 2) [2017] NSWCA 298

The applicant's materials did not identify any error in the Court's earlier decision dismissing his application for leave to appeal, largely sought to re-ventilate matters already finally determined, and did not warrant an oral hearing. Complaints about the prescribed fee, the time allowed for oral address, alleged partiality, prior workers' compensation matters, alleged debts, and Riley v California provided no basis for setting aside the Court's orders under r 36.16(3A).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion Seeking to Set Aside Court of Appeal Orders Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw), R 36.16(3 A) / On the Papers After Dismissal of Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Applicant's notice of motion filed on 16 October 2017 dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['court of Appeal Judgments and Orders' 'setting Aside Own Orders' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw), R 36.16(3 A)' 'application for Leave to Appeal' 'notice of Motion' 'oral Hearing']
['civil Procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['court of Appeal Judgments and Orders' 'setting Aside Own Orders' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw), R 36.16(3 A)' 'application for Leave to Appeal' 'notice of Motion' 'oral Hearing']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion Seeking to Set Aside Court of Appeal Orders Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw), R 36.16(3 A) / On the Papers After Dismissal of Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should set aside its orders made on 9 October 2017 dismissing the applicant's application for leave to appeal." "Whether the applicant's notice of motion and supporting materials identified any error warranting relief under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 36.16(3A)." 'Whether an oral hearing was warranted for the notice of motion.' "Whether complaints about the filing fee, time allowed for oral address, alleged partiality, earlier workers' compensation matters, and Riley v California justified reopening the application."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's materials did not identify any error in the Court's earlier decision dismissing his application for leave to appeal, largely sought to re-ventilate matters already finally determined, and did not warrant an oral hearing. Complaints about the prescribed fee, the time allowed for oral address, alleged partiality, prior workers' compensation matters, alleged debts, and Riley v California provided no basis for setting aside the Court's orders under r 36.16(3A).

Court Disposition

Applicant's notice of motion filed on 16 October 2017 dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's notice of motion filed on 16 October 2017 be dismissed with costs."]