Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Douglas v State of New South Wales [2023] NSWSC 879 Hearing dates: 27 July 2023 Date of orders: 27 July 2023 Decision date: 27 July 2023 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Ierace J Decision: (1) Leave granted to the plaintiff to institute proceedings against the defendant nunc pro tunc pursuant to ss 4 and 5 of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW);
(2) Costs to be costs in the cause.
Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Commencement of proceedings – Leave to commence action – Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW) – Leave sought subsequent to commencement of proceedings
Legislation Cited: Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW), ss 4, 5
Cases Cited: Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jackson Roy Douglas (Plaintiff)
State of New South Wales (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
J B Masur (Plaintiff)
A Charchar (Sol) (Defendant)
North Star Law (Plaintiff)
Makinson d’Apice Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2023/139235
JUDGMENT
-
By way of a notice of motion filed on 14 July 2023, Jackson Roy Douglas seeks leave pursuant to s 4 of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW) (the Act) to maintain his civil proceedings against the State of New South Wales in this Court. The nature of those proceedings, pursuant to a statement of claim that was filed without leave (by oversight) on 1 May 2023, is a claim for damages in respect of physical and sexual abuse allegedly sustained when the Mr Douglas was a child detainee at Riverina and Cobham Juvenile Justice Centres.
-
Leave is required by s 4 of the Act because at the time of the institution of proceedings, he was serving a sentence of imprisonment for a serious indictable offence. He will be eligible for release on parole in September 2023.
-
Leave may be granted as if it had been at the time of the institution of proceedings nunc pro tunc, the meaning of which was explained by Hamill J in Thurston v State of New South Wales [2021] NSWSC 226 at [3].
-
Section 5 of the Act provides:
“5 Grant of leave
A court shall not, under section 4, grant leave to a person to institute proceedings unless the court is satisfied that the proceedings are not an abuse of process and that there is prima facie ground for the proceedings.”
-
The notice of motion is supported by an affidavit of the plaintiff’s instructing solicitor which has annexed to it an evidentiary statement by the plaintiff, medical reports and relevant documentation generated by staff of Juvenile Justice NSW.
-
I am of the view that the alleged abuse that is particularised in the statement of claim would, if proved, establish a prima facie basis for damages of the type that is sought.
-
The State of New South Wales neither consents nor opposes the making of the orders sought by Mr Douglas. I am satisfied that the proceedings are not an abuse of process and that there are prima facie grounds for the proceedings.
Orders
-
Accordingly, I make the following orders:
Leave granted to the plaintiff to institute proceedings against the defendant nunc pro tunc pursuant to ss 4 and 5 of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW);
Costs to be costs in the cause.
**********
- AGLC
- Douglas v State of New South Wales [2023] NSWSC 879
- Case
- [2023] NSWSC 879
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the requirement for leave could be fulfilled post facto, that is, after the initiation of the proceedings. The court had to consider whether the statutory requirement for leave was a jurisdictional condition that could only be satisfied prior to the commencement of the action or if it could be complied with subsequently. This interpretation of the statute was crucial in determining the validity of the plaintiff's action and whether the court could proceed to hear the matter on its merits.
In delivering the judgment, the court held that the statutory requirement for leave under the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW) was a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite that must be met before any civil proceedings can be initiated. The court found that the statutory framework did not permit the granting of leave subsequent to the commencement of proceedings, and thus, any action commenced without prior leave was invalid. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's action for lack of jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales ruled that the plaintiff's action was not validly commenced due to the failure to obtain the requisite leave prior to initiating proceedings. The court found that the statutory requirement for leave was a jurisdictional condition that could not be satisfied after the action had commenced. As a result, the plaintiff's application for leave was denied, and the proceedings were dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.