Legal Research
Cases
Edwards v State of New South Wales

Edwards v State of New South Wales

Case [2021] NSWSC 181 4 March 2021

Malicious Prosecution

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Edwards v State of New South Wales [2021] NSWSC 181
Hearing dates: 30 April 2019;
1-2, 6-9 and 30 May 2019;
19-21 August 2019;
29 May 2020
Date of orders: 4 March 2021
Decision date: 04 March 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Walton J
Decision:
The Court makes the following orders:
(1) Judgment for the defendant.
(2) The plaintiff’s further amended statement of claim is dismissed.
(3) The plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs as agreed or, in default of agreement, as assessed.

Catchwords:
TORTS – further amended statement of claim – malicious prosecution – the identity of prosecutor – reasonable and probable cause – malice – false imprisonment – damages – orders

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)
Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 (NSW)
Evidence Act1995 (NSW)
Police Act 1990 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
A v State of New South Wales (2007) 230 CLR 500; [2007] HCA 10
Bailey v Director General of Natural Resources [2014] NSWSC 1012
Beckett v New South Wales (2013) 248 CLR 432; [2013] HCA 17
Beckett v State of New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 1017
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Clavel v Savage [2013] NSWSC 775
Clyne v State of New South Wales (No 1) [2011] NSWSC 629
Commonwealth of Australia v Fernando (2012) 200 FCR 1; [2012] FCAFC 18
Cowell v Corrective Services Commission (NSW) (1988) 13 NSWLR 714
Daniels v Telfer (1933) 34 SR (NSW) 99
Davis v Gell (1924) 35 CLR 275; [1924] HCA 56
Edwards v Commissioner for Fair Trading, Department of Finance, Services and Innovation [2019] NSWCATAP 208
Edwards v Department of Fair Trading [2019] NSWCATOD 5
Enzed Holdings Ltd v Wynthea Pty Ltd (1984) 57 ALR 167
Fernando v Commonwealth of Australia(No 4) [2010] FCA 1475
Gillies v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1598
Hamilton v State of New South Wales (No 13) [2016] NSWSC 1311
Hamod v New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375
Hamod v State of NSW [2007] NSWSC 600
HD v State of New South Wales [2016] NSWCA 85
Herniman v Smith [1938] AC 305
Ho v Powell (2001) 51 NSWLR 572
Holgate-Mohammed v Duke [1984] AC 437
Hyder v The Commonwealth (2012) 217 A Crim R 571; [2012] NSWCA 336
Landini v State of New South Wales [2008] NSWSC 1280
Luxton v Vines (1952) 85 CLR 352; [1952] HCA 19
McCrohon v Harith [2010] NSWCA 67
Mohamed Amin v JogendraBannerjee [1947] AC 322
Mulcahy v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 3
Mutton v Baker [2014] VSCA 43
Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67 ALJR 170 at 171
New South Wales v Cuthbertson [2018] NSWCA 320
New South Wales v Delly [2007] NSWCA 303
New South Wales v Robinson (2019) 266 CLR 619 [2019] HCA 46
New South…

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.

Continue reading Edwards v State of New South Wales

Details

AGLC: Edwards v State of New South Wales [2021] NSWSC 181
Case: [2021] NSWSC 181
Decision Date: 04 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a claim by Edwards against the State of New South Wales for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and damages. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had wrongfully prosecuted him, leading to his arrest, detention, and subsequent false imprisonment. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the prosecution of the plaintiff was carried out with reasonable and probable cause, and whether there was malice on the part of the prosecutor. The plaintiff also sought damages for the false imprisonment and sought an order for costs.

The court considered the principles of malicious prosecution, focusing on the elements of the tort and the burden of proof. It was established that the plaintiff had to demonstrate that the defendant had initiated a legal proceeding against him without probable cause, with malice, and that the proceeding had terminated in the plaintiff's favour. The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, focusing on the identity of the prosecutor, the existence of reasonable and probable cause, and the presence of malice. The court held that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving malice on the part of the prosecutor and that the prosecution had reasonable and probable cause. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. The plaintiff's application for damages and costs was also denied.

Orders