NSW Caselaw
Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Bhatia v State of New South Wales [2024] NSWCA 190 Hearing dates: 29 July 2024 Date of orders: 29 July 2024 Decision date: 31 July 2024 Before: Adamson JA Decision: (1) Grant leave to the appellant to amend the name of the respondent in the notices of motion filed 4 July 2024 and 9 July 2024 and the amended appeal from "Office of Sport in the Right of the State of New South Wales" to "State of New South Wales". (2) Dismiss the amended notice of appeal filed on 26 June 2024 on the following bases: (a) that the appeal is incompetent as leave has not been sought and it is required pursuant to s 101(2)(e) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW); and (b) pursuant to r 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) on the ground that the proceedings are frivolous and vexatious and no reasonable ground for appeal is disclosed. (3) Order the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, including the costs of the respondent's notices of motion filed 4 July 2024 and 9 July 2024. (4) Pursuant to s 98(4) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), quantify the costs in order (3) in the gross sum of $10,000 exclusive of GST. Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE — summary disposal — dismissal of proceedings — frivolous or vexatious proceedings — no reasonable cause of action disclosed — abuse of process — whether primary judge erred in dismissing proceedings — where applicant sought government grant for sporting achievements CIVIL PROCEDURE — summary disposal — dismissal of proceedings — incompetence — where leave to appeal was required — where a summons seeking leave was not filed Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 98 Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 13.4, 42.1 Cases Cited: Hamod v State of New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375 Harrison v Schipp (2002) 54 NSWLR 738; [2002] NSWCA 213 PPK Willoughby Pty Ltd v Baird [2019] NSWCA 48 Wickstead v Browne (1992) 30 NSWLR 1; [1992] NSWCA 272 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Devesh Bhatia (Applicant) State of New South Wales (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Applicant (self-represented) T Buterin (Respondent)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate