Fregnan v Stanizzo - [2016] NSWCA 264

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Fregnan v Stanizzo [2016] NSWCA 264
Hearing dates: 29 August 2016
Decision date: 22 September 2016
Before: Beazley P at [1];
Macfarlan JA at [2];
Leeming JA at [42]
Decision:
(1)   Grant leave to appeal.
(2)   Direct that Ms Fregnan’s Notice of Appeal be filed and served within seven days of the date of this judgment.
(3)   Allow the appeal.
(4)   Set aside the orders made in the District Court dismissing the proceedings and ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings, including the Notice of Motion of 19 October 2015, on an indemnity basis.
(5)   Dismiss Mr Stanizzo’s Notice of Motion dated 19 October 2015 and order him to pay Ms Fregnan’s costs of that Motion.
(6)   Order Mr Stanizzo to pay Ms Fregnan’s costs of the proceedings in this Court.
(7) Grant Mr Stanizzo a certificate under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW), if qualified.

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - particulars of claim - Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 15.1 - adequacy of particulars - detailed particulars of background or context of allegations not required - particulars of high degree of specificity not necessarily required in relation to central allegations - whether requests for particulars were in effect interrogatories
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 57
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 15.1, 15.2
Cases Cited: Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658; [1982] HCA 70
Sims v Wran [1984] 1 NSWLR 317
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Karina Vivianna Fregnan (Appellant)
Vincent Francis Stanizzo (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Kumar (Appellant)
M K Rollinson (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Self-represented (Appellant)
Justice Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2016/99299
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Date of Decision:

11 December 2015

Before:

Olsson DCJ

File Number(s):

2012/129649

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

In April 2012, the appellant commenced proceedings against the respondent in the District Court claiming damages for physical and psychological injuries suffered as a result of alleged sexual assaults and false imprisonment by the respondent. In October 2015, the respondent filed a Notice of Motion seeking an order for the supply by the appellant of particulars of her statement of claim requested in correspondence with the appellant and, failing their provision, dismissal of the proceedings. In November 2015, the primary judge, Olsson DCJ, directed the appellant to supply the particulars sought in the respondent’s letter of 3 September 2015. The appellant replied to that letter on 3 December 2015 but her Honour found that the reply was inadequate and dismissed the proceedings.

Held, per Macfarlan JA (Beazley P and Leeming JA agreeing) allowing the appeal:

1. It is not appropriate for a court to order a plaintiff to provide detailed particulars of allegations that are plainly made merely to provide a background or context to the central allegations in a statement of claim: at [1], [15],…

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 Fregnan v Stanizzo

Details

AGLC: Fregnan v Stanizzo [2016] NSWCA 264
Case: [2016] NSWCA 264
Decision Date: 22 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a dispute between Ms Fregnan (the plaintiff) and Mr Stanizzo (the defendant) regarding the adequacy of particulars provided in a statement of claim. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, with Beazley P, Macfarlan and Leeming JJA presiding.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the particulars provided by Ms Fregnan in her statement of claim were sufficient in accordance with rule 15.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), or whether the requests for further particulars made by Mr Stanizzo were, in substance, an attempt to elicit answers to interrogatories. The District Court had previously dismissed Ms Fregnan's proceedings and ordered her to pay Mr Stanizzo's costs on an indemnity basis, finding the particulars to be inadequate.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that rule 15.1 does not require particulars of a high degree of specificity, nor does it mandate the provision of detailed background or contextual information for every allegation. The Court found that the District Court had erred in its assessment of the particulars, particularly in its characterisation of Mr Stanizzo's requests as legitimate requests for particulars rather than disguised interrogatories. The Court applied the principle that particulars are intended to inform the other party of the case they have to meet, not to provide a detailed roadmap of the evidence.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the District Court's orders dismissing the proceedings and ordering indemnity costs, and dismissed Mr Stanizzo's Notice of Motion. Ms Fregnan was awarded costs of the motion and the proceedings in the Court of Appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Grant leave to appeal.

(2) Direct that Ms Fregnan’s Notice of Appeal be filed and served within seven days of the date of this judgment.

(3) Allow the appeal.

(4) Set aside the orders made in the District Court dismissing the proceedings and ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings, including the Notice of Motion of 19 October 2015, on an indemnity basis.

(5) Dismiss Mr Stanizzo’s Notice of Motion dated 19 October 2015 and order him to pay Ms Fregnan’s costs of that Motion.

(6) Order Mr Stanizzo to pay Ms Fregnan’s costs of the proceedings in this Court.

(7) Grant Mr Stanizzo a certificate under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW), if qualified.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Fregnan v Stanizzo [2016] NSWCA 264
Hearing dates:	29 August 2016
Decision date:	22 September 2016
Before:	Beazley P at [1]; Macfarlan JA at [2]; Leeming JA at [42]
Decision:	(1) Grant leave to appeal. (2) Direct that Ms Fregnan’s Notice of Appeal be filed and served within seven days of the date of this judgment. (3) Allow the appeal. (4) Set aside the orders made in the District Court dismissing the proceedings and ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings, including the Notice of Motion of 19 October 2015, on an indemnity basis. (5) Dismiss Mr Stanizzo’s Notice of Motion dated 19 October 2015 and order him to pay Ms Fregnan’s costs of that Motion. (6) Order Mr Stanizzo to pay Ms Fregnan’s costs of the proceedings in this Court. (7) Grant Mr Stanizzo a certificate under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW), if qualified.
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - particulars of claim - Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 15.1 - adequacy of particulars - detailed particulars of background or context of allegations not required - particulars of high degree of specificity not necessarily required in relation to central allegations - whether requests for particulars were in effect interrogatories
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 57 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 15.1, 15.2
Cases Cited:	Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658; [1982] HCA 70 Sims v Wran [1984] 1 NSWLR 317
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Karina Vivianna Fregnan (Appellant) Vincent Francis Stanizzo (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: A Kumar (Appellant) M K Rollinson (Respondent) Solicitors: Self-represented (Appellant) Justice Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2016/99299
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: District Court Jurisdiction: Civil Date of Decision: 11 December 2015 Before: Olsson DCJ File Number(s): 2012/129649