Wang v Dlakic [2015] NSWSC 1590

Wang v Dlakic [2015] NSWSC 1590

The amended summons had to be dismissed because, as a single judge of the Common Law Division, the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an attack on a Court of Appeal judgment; the plaintiff's affidavits could not be unravelled; and the plaintiff appeared to be seeking to re-litigate matters already dealt with in...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Amended Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal / Hearing and Determination Before a Single Judge in the Duty List
Outcome
Amended summons dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendants' costs.
Legal Topics
['jurisdiction of a Single Judge' 'attempt to Impugn a Court of Appeal Judgment' 'self Represented Litigant' 're Litigation' 'costs Follow the Event']
['civil Procedure' 'appeals' 'costs'] ['jurisdiction of a Single Judge' 'attempt to Impugn a Court of Appeal Judgment' 'self Represented Litigant' 're Litigation' 'costs Follow the Event']

Source-derived case record

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

Amended Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal / Hearing and Determination Before a Single Judge in the Duty List

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a single judge of the Common Law Division had jurisdiction to hear an appeal, review, application for prerogative relief, or other forensic attack upon a judgment of the Court of Appeal.' "Whether the plaintiff's materials disclosed an intelligible basis for relief." 'Whether the plaintiff was seeking to re-litigate matters dealt with in the Court of Appeal judgment.' "Whether the plaintiff should pay the defendants' costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The amended summons had to be dismissed because, as a single judge of the Common Law Division, the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an attack on a Court of Appeal judgment; the plaintiff's affidavits could not be unravelled; and the plaintiff appeared to be seeking to re-litigate matters already dealt with in detail by the Court of Appeal. Costs were ordered against the plaintiff because, despite his self-representation and sincere belief of injustice, the defendants had repeatedly been required to attend court in response to his proceedings and costs should follow the event.

Court Disposition

Amended summons dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendants' costs.

Orders

  • ['The amended summons of the plaintiff filed in Court on 22 October 2015 is dismissed.' 'The plaintiff must pay the costs of the defendants of the proceedings before me.']