Sousa v Baron [2007] NSWSC 107

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Sousa v Baron [2007] NSWSC 107

HEARING DATE(S) : 16 February 2007

JUDGMENT DATE : 16 February 2007

JURISDICTION : Equity

JUDGMENT OF : Hamilton J

DECISION : Proceedings summarily dismissed.

CATCHWORDS : PROCEDURE [93] – Supreme Court procedure – Procedure under Rules of Court – Summary disposal – Summary dismissal – Summons on face clearly not tenable.

LEGISLATION CITED : Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 r 13.4(1)(b)

Chantelle Mafra Sousa (P) PARTIES : David Baron (D1) Melinda Griffiths (D2)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 1097/07

COUNSEL : In person (P) S Gardiner (Ds)

SOLICITORS : Self represented (P) Keddies Litigation Lawyers (Ds)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

HAMILTON J

FRIDAY, 16 FEBRUARY 2007

1097/07 CHANTELLE MAFRA SOUSA v DAVID BARON & ANOR JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application for dismissal of a summons in accordance with r 13.4(1)(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. The prayers for relief in the summons make no sense at all. 2 When the matter was first called before me this morning, the plaintiff appeared in person so that proof of service of the notice of motion on her is not necessary. When the matter was later called on for hearing, Miss Sousa had departed from the Court and its environs and did not appear when called. 3 Mr Gardiner, of counsel for the defendant, led oral evidence from his instructing clerk, Mr J C Sudoti, that, after having been provided with documentation relating to the application, as I had earlier required, the plaintiff had in his hearing informed Mr Gardiner outside and inside the Court that she would not wait and intended to depart. Mr Gardiner urged upon her that it was important for her to wait and be present when the matter was dealt with and that orders might be made in her absence if she did not do so, but she departed nonetheless. 4 The summons in its present form is clearly not tenable. I make the following orders: