Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Evans v State of New South Wales [2022] NSWSC 244 Hearing dates: 10 March 2022 Date of orders: 10 March 2022 Decision date: 10 March 2022 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) Each party to pay their own costs.
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: Todd Evans (Plaintiff)
State of New South Wales (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
T Meakes (Plaintiff)
E May (Sol) (Defendant)
Beston McManis Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2021/87829
Judgment
-
Todd Evans has commenced proceedings in this Court by way of an amended statement of claim filed on 7 March 2022, seeking damages for psychological, psychiatric and physical injuries sustained when he was allegedly subject to sexual and physical abuse perpetrated by a foster parent while he was a ward of the state and in foster care, having been placed there by the New South Wales Department of Family and Community Services.
-
At the time of the institution of proceedings Mr Evans was in custody. Accordingly, pursuant to s 4 of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW) (“the Act”), he is required to have leave of the Court before such proceedings are instituted.
-
Mr Evans brings the application now seeking leave as if leave had been sought at the time that proceedings were instituted. It is established that leave can be granted as if it had been granted at the time of the institution of proceedings nunc pro tunc, the meaning of which is helpfully 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 plaintiff, in an evidentiary statement dated 9 December 2021, recalled the first instance of alleged sexual abuse by his foster father when he was approximately 6 or 7 years old and related the pattern of such behaviour thereafter, as well as instances of non-sexual physical abuse when he was in his teenage years.
-
The State of New South Wales does not contest that the orders should be made. 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);
Each party to pay their own costs.
**********
- AGLC
- Evans v State of New South Wales [2022] NSWSC 244
- Case
- [2022] NSWSC 244
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether it had the jurisdiction to grant leave under the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW) after the proceedings had already been initiated. The court had to determine whether the statutory requirement for leave to commence proceedings could be fulfilled after the action had begun, and if such a grant of leave would be effective. Additionally, the court needed to consider the implications of the statutory language and whether it permitted a post-commencement grant of leave.
The court held that it did not have the jurisdiction to grant leave under the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW) after the proceedings had already been commenced. The court found that the statutory language was clear and required leave to be obtained before instituting the action. The court emphasised that the statutory framework was designed to prevent felons from commencing proceedings without prior authorisation, and allowing leave to be granted retroactively would undermine this purpose. Consequently, the plaintiff's application for leave was dismissed, and the proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of the leave application.
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.