Carolan v State of New South Wales

In the case of Carolan v State of New South Wales, the plaintiff, Carolan, sought the return of cash seized by the police under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002. The defendants, the State of New South Wales, opposed the claim on the basis of the plaintiff's history of non-compliance with court orders. The matter was before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which was required to decide whether the proceedings should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The court was also tasked with determining the appropriate orders to ensure the litigation progressed.

The court considered the plaintiff's history of non-compliance with court orders, including the failure to comply with an order to provide a sworn statement and a certificate of service. The plaintiff argued that the non-compliance was due to the defendants' failure to provide necessary documents. The court noted that the plaintiff had not shown exceptional circumstances warranting an exception to the general rule that proceedings should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The court emphasised the importance of compliance with court orders and the need for the plaintiff to take steps to progress the litigation.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to grant an exceptional remedy and ordered that the plaintiff take specific steps to progress the litigation, including filing a statement of claim and providing the defendants with a certificate of service. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the Notice of Motion by way of a gross sum costs order. The court's decision underscores the importance of compliance with court orders and the need for parties to take steps to progress litigation in a timely and efficient manner.

The court made orders that the plaintiff file a statement of claim within 28 days of the judgment, provide the defendants with a certificate of service within 14 days of filing the statement of claim, and pay the defendants' costs of the Notice of Motion by way of a gross sum costs order. The court's decision provides guidance on the appropriate orders to make when a party has been non-compliant with court orders and the proceedings are at risk of being dismissed for want of prosecution.