NSW Caselaw
AZRIEL v SFHIR
SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL HANDLEY J 26 July 1993, 26 July 1993
[1993] NSWCA 13
Handley J This is an appeal as of right by Eliezer Azriel from a decision of Grove J who dismissed a summons for relief prerogative in nature against a decision of the Local Court in its Small Claims jurisdiction. The proceedings at first instance were heard at Waverley Local Court and comprised a claim and cross-claim for property damage arising out of a motor vehicle accident.
The result of the proceedings was that judgment was given against the present appellant in favour of the cross-claimant for $1675.38.
After abortive proceedings to state a case to the Supreme Court and further abortive proceedings in which the present appellant sought to prohibit the decision of the Magistrate, without joining him as a party to the proceedings, the appellant brought proceedings in the Common Law Division for common law prohibition against the Magistrate and the defendant cross-claimant, alleged that he had been denied natural justice in the Local Court.
On 21 May Grove J dismissed the appellant's claim for prerogative relief with costs for reasons which he then gave. The appellant has appealed as of right to this Court, and as presently advised it appears that the appeal is competent.
The respondent to the appeal has now moved for an order that the appellant provide security for the costs of the appeal. The appellant concedes that he is impecunious and unable to meet the costs ordered by Grove J or indeed to provide any security for the costs of the appeal.
There is evidence before me that attempts by the respondent to execute on the judgment of the Local Court against the appellant have been unsuccessful. The position, therefore, is that the appellant has failed both in the Local Court and in the Supreme Court, and seeks to bring a second appeal and to involve the respondent in a third hearing relating to the merits of the dispute. I exclude for present purposes the hearing before Finlay J where earlier proceedings by the appellant challenging the decision of the Local Court failed for procedural reasons.
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