[2011] NSWCA 142

Rahman v Riordan

Notice of Motion dated 16 March 2011 dismissed with costs. [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.]

Catchwords

APPEAL - civil - application to set aside orders dismissing leave application - application refused - no issue of principle

Legislation cited

Supreme Court Act 1970

Judgment

[1]
MACFARLAN JA : This is an application by Notice of Motion dated 16 March 2011 for orders setting aside orders made by this Court on 23 September, 1 November, 15 December 2010 and 9 March 2011. The circumstances giving rise to this application are sufficiently set out in the Court's judgments of 15 December 2010 ([2010] NSWCA 375) and 9 March 2011 ([2011] NSWCA 54).
[2]
As with the Notice of Motion dealt with in the Court's judgment of 9 March 2011, much of what Mr Rahman has said and written in support of the present Notice of Motion is difficult to understand. It is at times unintelligible. As best I can determine, the effect of his contentions is however as follows.
[3]
First, Mr Rahman alleges that one or more of the Courts that made the earlier decisions or orders was not properly constituted under the provisions of the Supreme Court Act 1970. An argument to the same effect was rejected by this Court on 9 March 2011. I can still discern no sensible argument to support that contention.
[4]
Secondly, Mr Rahman contends that various of the judges involved in the decisions to which I have referred were guilty of "judicial behaviour" that was "erroneous, trespass, transgress, judicial racism and abuse of statutes" and also lacked "intellectual honesty". Mr Rahman has not identified any arguable basis for these allegations.
[5]
Thirdly, Mr Rahman contends that the Court has been prejudiced against him because of his "social class". Again there is no basis for this allegation.
[6]
Fourthly, Mr Rahman requested that his Notice of Motion be adjourned for hearing before a different panel of judges. There is no basis for this to be done.
[7]
I propose that Mr Rahman's Notice of Motion be dismissed with costs.
[8]
YOUNG JA : I agree with Macfarlan JA's reasons and decision.
[9]
TOBIAS AJA : I agree with Macfarlan JA.