Hua Shan v Fairfield City Council & Anor [2020] NSWSC 681

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hua Shan v Fairfield City Council & Anor [2020] NSWSC 681 Hearing dates: 1 June 2020 Date of orders: 01 June 2020 Decision date: 01 June 2020 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Button J Decision: (1) The decision of Registrar Jones of 9 March 2020 in this matter is set aside. (2) Pursuant to s 140(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), District Court proceedings case number 2018/387903 are transferred to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. (3) The costs of the summons, including the costs of the proceedings before me, are costs in the cause. (4) The matter is listed before the Common Law Registrar for directions at 9am on Monday 15 June 2020. Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Hua Shan (Plaintiff) Fairfield City Council (First Defendant) SCO Personnel Experts Pty Ltd (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: B G McManamey (Plaintiff) A Bond, Solicitor (First Defendant) S Lee, Solicitor (Second Defendant)

Solicitors: Law Partners Compensation Lawyers (Plaintiff) Gillis Delaney Lawyers (First Defendant) Lee Legal Group (Second Defendant) File Number(s): 2019/00373816

EX TEMPORE Judgment – REVISED

Introduction 1. This is an application for review of a decision of a Registrar, placed before me by way of motion pursuant to r 49.19 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). It pertains to an application for a transfer of proceedings from the District Court to this Court, pursuant to s 140 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). What is being reviewed is a refusal by the learned Registrar, who declined to transfer the matter. 2. Without delving deeply into the jurisprudence of the nature of such a review, I think it can be very baldly summarised as not requiring identification of error at first instance, but calling for a degree of caution, especially if what is being reviewed is a procedural or interlocutory step: see Tomko v Palasty (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 369. 3. The position of each of the defendants, as helpfully explained orally (and each of them did me the courtesy of providing a brief written submission to that effect as well), is to neither consent to nor oppose the motion, but to submit that it is a matter for my satisfaction. They also accept that the correct costs order in these circumstances is that costs be in the cause.