"An" v State of NSW - [2003] NSWSC 100

CITATION: "AN" v State of NSW [2003] NSWSC 100

HEARING DATE(S): 19 February 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
3 March 2003

JURISDICTION:
13923/1992

JUDGMENT OF: Master Harrison

DECISION: (1) The balance of the ASC filed 10 February 1993 is dismissed; (2) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the motion and of the proceedings.

CATCHWORDS: Dismissal of proceedings - want of prosecution

LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Rules - Part 33
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)

CASES CITED: Hoser v Hartcher [1999] NSWSC 527
Gill v Eatts & Ors (1999) Aust Torts Reports 81-529

PARTIES :

"AN"
(Plaintiff)
State of New South Wales
(Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 13923/1992

COUNSEL: Ms I Ryan
(Defendant)

SOLICITORS:
No Appearance for the plaintiff
Ms G Fuller
Crown Solicitor's Office
(Defendant)

- 13 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

MASTER HARRISON

MONDAY, 3 MARCH 2003

13923/ 1992 - “AN” v
STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES

- want of prosecution)

1 MASTER: By notice of motion filed 25 February 2002, the defendant seeks an order that these proceedings be dismissed or alternatively stayed for want of prosecution pursuant to Part 33 r 6 of the Supreme Court Rules (SCR). The defendant relied on the affidavit of Gillian Fuller affirmed 13 March 2000 and 22 February 2002. As the plaintiff did not appear at the hearing, the court has taken into account an affidavit by him sworn and declared on 13 September 2000 and a report by Dr Peter Anderson dated 17 May 2001 (Ex A on 3 April 2002).

2 These proceedings have had a long and sad history. A history of the steps taken in these proceedings is as follows.

3 On 15 August 1992, the statement of claim was served.

4 On 17 August 2002, the plaintiff issued a subpoena to the Department of Community Services (DOCS) requiring it to produce all records relating to his son. This subpoena was returnable on 26 August 1992. On that day objection was taken on behalf of DOC to the subpoena and the registrar stood the matter over for hearing before the Prothonotary on 28 September 1992.

5 On 28 September 1992, the Prothonotary ordered that the subpoena and another subpoena addressed to the Police Department be set aside and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants’ costs.

6 On 12 February 1993, the defendant filed a notice of motion to have the statement of claim dismissed as no reasonable cause of action was disclosed.

7 On 9 March 1992, that notice of motion was returnable before Registrar Harrison and was adjourned to 31 March 1993 for mention. On 31 March 1993, the notice of motion was further adjourned to 23 April 1993. On 23 April 1993, the notice of motion was further adjourned to 21 May 1993 and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of the appearance on 23 April 1993.

8 Meanwhile, these proceedings occupied a great deal of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read "An" v State of NSW and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] NSWSC 100
Decision Date: 3 March 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of "An" v State of NSW involved a dispute between an individual and the State of New South Wales, pertaining to the dismissal of proceedings due to lack of prosecution. The matter was brought before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the plaintiff sought to challenge the decision to dismiss their claim for reasons of not taking the proceedings forward in a timely manner.

The legal issues at the heart of the case revolved around the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions governing the dismissal of proceedings for want of prosecution. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff's delay in pursuing the case warranted the dismissal of their claim and whether any mitigating factors should be considered in this determination. Additionally, the court had to examine the principles guiding judicial discretion in such matters, including the need to balance the rights of the plaintiff against the interests of justice and the efficient administration of the court's resources.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the relevant legal authorities and considered the specific circumstances of the case. The court found that the plaintiff had indeed failed to diligently prosecute their claim, resulting in significant delays that impacted the fairness and efficiency of the legal process. Despite the plaintiff's arguments for mitigation, the court concluded that the delay was unreasonable and unjustified, and therefore dismissed the proceedings in line with the applicable legal principles. The court's decision was grounded in a thorough analysis of the case's facts and the applicable legal standards, ultimately affirming the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim.

Orders