Quach v New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission (No 3)

[2016] NSWCA 284

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Review of decision of single judge of appeal
3. › Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 46(4)
4. › Standard of review
5. › Whether judge erred in principle or decision plainly wrong
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Abuse of process
3. › Inherent jurisdiction of court
4. › Repeated applications in concluded proceedings
5. › Teoh Order
6. › Whether court may direct Registrar to refer further motions for assessment as vexatious
7. › Principle of finality
8. › Commonwealth Trading Bank v Inglis (1974) 131 CLR 311
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Procedural fairness
3. › Judge drawing parties' attention to relevant authority
4. › Whether denial of procedural fairness
5. › Listing of motions before judge familiar with proceedings
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Law reform
3. › Civil restraint orders
4. › Recommendation that Rules Committee consider rule similar to Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (UK), r 3.11
5. › Practice Direction 3C (Civil Restraint Orders)

Quick Take

The Court of Appeal has inherent jurisdiction to make a 'Teoh Order' directing the Registrar to refer further motions by a litigant to a judge for assessment as to whether they should be summarily dismissed as vexatious and an abuse of process, and this power extends to concluded proceedings. The standard for review under s 46(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) requires the applicant to demonstrate error of principle or that the decision was plainly wrong. The Court recommended that the Rules Committee consider introducing a rule and practice direction similar to the UK Civil Procedure Rules r 3.11 and Practice Direction 3C to codify the court's powers to deal with repetitious applications.