Australia, July 9 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement:

1 By its Judgment delivered on 10 April 2025 in these proceedings, the Court dismissed the summons filed by the plaintiff (Mr Tutoveanu) and ordered him to pay the costs of the first defendant (Mr Velez) and the second defendant (The Greens NSW): Tutoveanu v Velez [2025] NSWSC 359. These reasons should be read, and assume familiarity, with the Judgment.

2. By a notice of motion dated 10 April 2025, Mr Tutoveanu seeks these orders:

1) Set aside judgment and orders entered on 10 April 2025 pursuant to r 36.15(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW); amd

2) Leave for plaintiff to give evidence under oath of his medical condition.

3. The Court has dealt with the motion on the papers and without the need to call on the defendants. For the reasons set out below, the motion will be dismissed. Those reasons may be summarised as being that Mr Tutoveanu's evidence and submissions disclose no basis to invoke the narrowly confined grounds set out in r 36.15(1). The matters he raises all go to the correctness of the Judgment itself, other than one issue which is an irrelevant matter of fact (assuming it to be correct). As I explained to Mr Tutoveanu, the correctness of the Judgment is to be challenged, if he wishes, by an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

4. Mr Tutoveanu appeared for himself and prepared his own submissions. At the first return date of the motion, the defendants were represented by Mr P Santucci of Counsel.

Procedural history

5. The Judgment was delivered on 10 April 2025. It dismissed Mr Tutoveanu's challenge to the Greens NSW not having accepted his incomplete application to be considered for preselection as that party's candidate for the Federal Electorate of Sydney in the (then impending) May 2025 federal election. Mr Tutoveanu appeared to have the motion with him in court, apparently prepared in advance of the outcome.

6. There was a delay in filing the motion. Some days later Mr Tutoveanu appeared in my court unannounced and, to bring matters to a head, I directed that the motion should be filed and made returnable before me on 23 May 2025.

7. At the return date on 23 May 2025:

1) Mr Tutoveanu appeared for himself and Mr Santucci appeared for the defendants;

2) Mr Tutoveanu provided the Court and the defendants with a court book in relation to his motion which included an affidavit made on 3 May 2025, but did not contain the written submissions foreshadowed in the index to the court book;

3) Mr Tutoveanu consented to an order proposed by the defendants that he file and serve his submissions on or before 30 May 2025. In light of what has since occurred, I record that I made it clear to Mr Tutoveanu that he could have had longer to prepare his written submissions, but he steadfastly adhered to that date;

4) The Court noted Mr Santucci's submissions on behalf of the defendants that there was no basis on which the motion could succeed and that, insofar as Mr Tutoveanu wished to complain about the Judgment, the proper course was for him to appeal to the Court of Appeal; and

5) I informed the parties, and they agreed, that in the interests of saving costs, I would not make directions for the defendants to serve and file submissions unless and until, after reviewing Mr Tutoveanu's submissions, I came to the view that they raised a sufficient case for an order under r 36.15(1) that a formal response on behalf of the defendants was required.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1975892d08c8bd3f157b10ef)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.