Background
Liaoxing Pan, acting without a lawyer, sought judicial review of what he characterized as the NSW Online Registry’s refusal to provide a transcript of Local Court proceedings held on 1 December 2023. He had paid the initial transcript charge of $129 but did not pay a further invoice for $230.
The Court found that transcript charges operated in two stages: an initial fee covering the first eight pages, followed by a per-page balance payable once the transcript had been prepared. The 23-page transcript cost $359 in total and was available upon payment of the outstanding $230. Although one communication incorrectly classified the matter as criminal, Pan had previously been told that the requested transcript was available once the balance was paid.
Pan alleged denial of procedural fairness and jurisdictional error, arguing that the Department accepted his payment but supplied neither the transcript nor reasons for refusing it. The defendant sought dismissal under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), offered to provide the transcript without further charge, and had offered not to seek costs if Pan discontinued by 30 June 2026.
The Court’s Holding
Elkaim AJ dismissed the summons under UCPR r 13.4. The transcript had not been refused through an administrative decision requiring reasons or a hearing; it was withheld because Pan had not paid the prescribed balance. The ordinary fee rules were simply applied, so the alleged procedural unfairness and jurisdictional error were not established.
The proceedings also suffered from party and reviewability problems. Any relevant decision was made by the Local Court, not the named defendant, yet neither the Local Court decision-maker nor the strata-plan owners were joined. To the extent Pan challenged the earlier refusal to waive the transcript fee, UCPR r 49.19 restricted applications concerning decisions to waive, postpone, or remit fees.
The Court additionally held that litigating over the unpaid $230, especially after the defendant offered the transcript free of charge and proposed that each side bear its own costs upon discontinuance, was contrary to the overriding purpose in s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). It changed the defendant’s name to the Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice, made no costs order through 30 June 2026, and ordered Pan to pay the defendant’s costs incurred afterward. The defendant agreed to email him the transcript within 48 hours.
Key Takeaways
- Withholding a court transcript pending payment of the prescribed balance was the application of fee rules, not a reviewable administrative refusal requiring reasons or a hearing.
- A judicial-review applicant must identify and join the proper decision-maker and other parties interested in maintaining the challenged decision.
- A reasonable settlement offer can materially affect costs, particularly when continued litigation is disproportionate to the amount in dispute.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes an administrative decision amenable to judicial review from the routine implementation of a prescribed court-fee scheme. Allegations of procedural unfairness cannot create a hearing or reasons requirement where officials have merely withheld a requested service until the statutory fee is paid.
It also illustrates how proportionality under s 56 and rejected settlement offers can shape procedural dismissal and costs orders, while showing that courts may account for genuine confusion, self-representation, and language difficulties when allocating costs.