Majak v Rose (No 5) [2017] NSWCA 238

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Majak v Rose (No 5) [2017] NSWCA 238 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 28 September 2017 Before: Leeming JA; Simpson JA; Emmett AJA Decision: (1) Dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 30 May 2017.

(2) The applicant to pay the third respondent's costs of the motion. Catchwords: PRACTICE – application to reopen under UCPR 36.16 – no basis for reopening – observations as to the nature of the power – application dismissed Legislation Cited: Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 36.16(3A) Cases Cited: Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2) (1993) 176 CLR 300; [1993] HCA 6 Majak v Rose (No 3) [2017] NSWCA 104 Majak v Rose (No 4) [2017] NSWCA 170 Rockcote Enterprises Pty Ltd v FS Architects Pty Ltd (No 2); Carelli v FS Architects Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 205 State Rail Authority of NSW v Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd (1982) 150 CLR 29; [1982] HCA 51 Waterhouse v Independent Commission Against Corruption (No 2) [2015] NSWCA 362 Wentworth v Woollahra Municipal Council (No 2) (1982) 149 CLR 672; [1982] HCA 41 Category: Consequential orders (other than Costs) Parties: Zofia Majak (Applicant) Local Court of New South Wales (Gosford) (First Respondent) District Court of New South Wales (Gosford) (Second Respondent) Alan Wesley Rose (Third Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Not applicable (Applicant) Submitting appearance (First and Second Respondents) Not applicable (Third Respondent)