Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Penson v Titan National Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 404 Hearing dates: 3 December 2015 Decision date: 16 December 2015 Before: Meagher JA; Gleeson JA; Simpson JA Decision: The Summons and Amended Summons are dismissed with costs. Catchwords: SUMMONS - judicial review - Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69 - application for judicial review of two decisions of Court of Appeal – no judicial review of orders of the same Court - Fleet v Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals NSW [2008] NSWCA 227 - Barton v Walker [1979] 2 NSWLR 740 - summons dismissed Legislation Cited: Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 1.11(4), 59.10 Cases Cited: Barton v Walker [1979] 2 NSWLR 740 Fleet v Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals NSW [2008] NSWCA 227 Penson v Titan National Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 165 Penson v Titan National Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] NSWCA 197 R v Wright; Ex parte Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia [1955] HCA 35; 93 CLR 528 The Queen v The Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte Amalgamated Engineering Union [1953] HCA 60; 89 CLR 636 Texts Cited: LexisNexis Butterworths, Ritchie's Uniform Civil Procedure NSW, vol 2, 2005 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Shirley Penson (Applicant) Titan National Pty Ltd (First Respondent) Kathryn Wood-Weber (Second Respondent) Supreme Court of New South Wales (Third Respondent) Representation: Counsel: in person (Applicant) P M Barham (First and Second Respondents) V Musico (Third Respondent) Solicitors: N/A (Applicant) Pure Legal (First and Second Respondents) Crown Solicitors Officer (Third Respondent) File Number(s): 2015/190593 Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Supreme Court Jurisdiction: Court of Appeal Citation: Penson v Titan National Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 165 Penson v Titan National Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] NSWCA 197 Date of Decision: 5 June 2015; 15 July 2015 Before: Ward and Leeming JJA File Number(s): 2014/373155 [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Judgment 1. THE COURT: By Summons originally filed in this Court on 7 September 2015 and Amended Summons filed on 7 October 2015, the applicant, Ms Shirley Penson, seeks, purportedly under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), judicial review of two decisions of the Court of Appeal constituted by Ward and Leeming JJA on 5 June 2015 and 15 July 2015. 2. In the proceedings the subject of the first judgment Ms Penson sought leave to appeal against decisions of Black J and Brereton J, both of the Equity Division. Ward and Leeming JJA dismissed the application, for reasons given by Ward JA with which Leeming JA agreed: Penson v Titan National Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 165. In the proceedings the subject of the second judgment, Ms Penson applied to their Honours to set aside or vary their judgment. That application also was refused with reasons given in a joint judgment: Penson v Titan National Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] NSWCA 197. 3. Ms Penson now purportedly seeks judicial review of each decision under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act. The respondents contend that the Summons is brought out of time. Pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) 59.10(1), proceedings for judicial review of a decision must be commenced within 3 months of the date of the decision, unless, pursuant to sub-r (2), the court extends the time. 4. Since the first decision was made on 5 June, the 3 month period expired on 5 September, a Saturday. By UCPR 1.11(4), where the last day for doing "a thing" is not a business day, "the thing" may be done on the following business day. Ms Penson was not, therefore, out of time in respect of either of the decisions. 5. In an Amended Summons filed on 7 October 2015 Ms Penson has identified as her grounds: "1 Denial of justice in not hearing the whole of the matter in the Further Amended Summons, including the substantive matter with respect to the judgments of Justice Black 20 November 2014; 2 Decisions of monumental adversity and prejudice to the applicant based entirely upon the action of counsel, who acted on his own initiative against the matter and the applicant and did not prior seek the applicant's instructions to do so, instructions which included but not limited to the raising of objection or opposing to the asserted facts and alleged evidence brought by the respondents and the relief sought by the respondents, including costs; 3 Principles of justice that an aggrieved party should be afforded a fair opportunity to be heard by authorities, including Brennan J in Kioa v West [1985] HCA 81 quoting Tucker LJ in Russell v Duke of Norfolk [1949] 1 All ER 109 'that there is an irreducible minimum required by the principles of natural justice, namely, that the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case'; 4 Justice and procedural fairness of the applicant's natural right; 5 Arguable errors of facts/law and discretions." 1. She seeks, inter alia, the following orders: "… 2 Leave (if required) to refer the application to an alternative court, tribunal or authorities; … 5 The decisions of Justices Ward and Leeming be quashed; 6 The respective orders be set aside; 7 The matter be remitted to be determined in accordance with the law." 1. As an alternative to her claim for judicial review, Ms Penson filed a Notice of Intention to Appeal against the judgment of 5 June. That Notice expired on 5 September 2015. So far as the evidence discloses, Ms Penson has not filed a Notice of Appeal. 2. Section 69 of the Supreme Court Act provides for a procedure that replaces the prerogative writs for which the common law provided. Those writs did not lie against a superior court: The Queen v The Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte Amalgamated Engineering Union [1953] HCA 60; 89 CLR 636. A judge of the Supreme Court has no power to direct an order in the nature of prohibition against another judge of the same Court: Fleet v Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals NSW [2008] NSWCA 227 at [36]; Barton v Walker [1979] 2 NSWLR 740. Nor is there power to make an order in the nature of certiorari, as sought by Ms Penson in Order 5 of her application. Section 69 has not altered that position. The orders of judges of the Supreme Court, including of the Court of Appeal, are not amenable to review under s 69. Ms Penson's application in this respect is misconceived and should be dismissed. 3. Apparently in recognition of the absence of any power in this Court to review the judicial decisions of Ward and Leeming JJA, Ms Penson sought to characterise the judgments as administrative, rather than judicial. Even if this characterisation were correct, s 69 would not be available to permit review: R v Wright; Ex parte Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia [1955] HCA 35; 93 CLR 528 at 541; and see the commentary to s 69 in LexisNexis Butterworths, Ritchie's Uniform Civil Procedure NSW, vol 2, 2005. 4. In any event, the decisions are clearly judicial, the first being the refusal of leave to appeal. Such a decision involves, among other things, an evaluation of the prospects of success of the proposed appeal. The second decision, refusal of leave to reopen the earlier decision, also involved the exercise of a judicial function. 5. The Summons and Amended Summons are dismissed with costs. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 16 December 2015