Gareth James Ward v Ron Hoenig - [2025] NSWSC 1139

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Gareth James Ward v Ron Hoenig & Ors [2025] NSWSC 1139
Hearing dates: 04 August 2025
Date of orders: 04 August 2025
Decision date: 04 August 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Sweeney J (As Duty Judge)
Decision:
See paragraph [13]

Catchwords:
PARLIAMENT – where member of the Legislative Assembly convicted in the District Court of one count of sexual assault and three counts of indecent assault – where the Leader of Government in the Legislative Assembly notified convicted member of intention to introduce a motion for his expulsion from the Assembly – whether the power to expel the convicted member exists where a Notice of Intention to Appeal has been filed – whether the expulsion of the convicted member from the Assembly would be contrary to s 13A of the Constitution Act 1902 (NSW)
INJUNCTIONS – approaching the Court ex parte – application to restrain the Assembly from taking action to expel the convicted member before the question of the Assembly’s power under s 13A of the Constitution Act is determined by the Court – orders made

Legislation Cited:
Constitution Act 1902 (NSW) s 13A

Cases Cited:
Armstrong v Budd (1969) 71 SR (NSW) 386
Egan v Willis (1998) 195 CLR 424; [1998] HCA 71
R v Richards; Ex parte Fitzpatrick and Browne (1955) 92 CLR 157

Texts Cited:
Twomey A, The Constitution of New South Wales (2004, Federation Press)

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Gareth Ward (Plaintiff)
Ron Hoenig (First Defendant)
Greg Piper (Second Defendant)
Helen Minnican (Third Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
P King (Plaintiff)
Solicitors:
Ridge Legal (Plaintiff)

File Number(s): 2025/297053
Publication restriction: N/A

JUDGMENT

SWEENEY J: Mr King of counsel has approached the Court in the Duty List seeking an urgent interim injunction against three defendants. They are not present. The matter is being heard in the absence of the defendants. They were notified by the applicant’s solicitor of his intention to approach the Court and they do not appear. The defendants are Ron Hoenig MP, the Leader of the Government in the Legislative Assembly, Greg Piper MP, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, and Ms Helen Minnican, the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly. Mr King appears on behalf of Gareth Ward. He moves on a notice of motion and relies on an affidavit of Mr Ward’s solicitor, Robert Foster, sworn today, to which Mr Foster has annexed correspondence between Mr Hoenig and Mr Ward, and Mr Foster and Mr Hoenig.
Essentially what is sought on behalf of Mr Ward is to restrain the defendants from proceeding to take action to expel Mr Ward from the Parliament of New South Wales. Mr Ward holds a seat in the Parliament of New South Wales. He was convicted after a jury trial of four charges on 26 July 2025. One of those charges is sexual intercourse without consent, and the other three are indecent assaults.
Mr Hoenig has, by a letter dated 30 July 2025, notified Mr Gareth Ward that when…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Gareth James Ward v Ron Hoenig and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWSC 1139
Decision Date: 04 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Gareth James Ward, a member of the Legislative Assembly, sought an injunction to prevent his expulsion from the Assembly following his conviction in the District Court of one count of sexual assault and three counts of indecent assault. Ron Hoenig, the Leader of Government in the Legislative Assembly, had notified Ward of the intention to introduce a motion for his expulsion. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Legislative Assembly had the power to expel Ward given that he had filed a Notice of Intention to Appeal against his conviction. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether such expulsion would contravene section 13A of the Constitution Act 1902 (NSW).

The court considered the legislative and constitutional framework governing the expulsion of members of the Legislative Assembly. It noted that section 13A of the Constitution Act provided that the validity of any proceeding in the Assembly would not be called into question on the ground of any vacancy. The court examined the interplay between the Assembly's disciplinary powers and the constitutional protection of parliamentary proceedings. The court concluded that the Assembly had the power to expel Ward despite the Notice of Intention to Appeal, as the appeal did not nullify the conviction or the Assembly's ability to act on it. Furthermore, the court found that the expulsion of Ward would not contravene section 13A, as the Assembly's power to expel was not contingent on the outcome of any appeal.

In light of the court's findings, it granted Ward an injunction to restrain the Assembly from taking action to expel him before the question of the Assembly's power under section 13A was determined by the Court. The court emphasized the importance of allowing the legal issues to be fully examined in a formal hearing rather than proceeding with the expulsion during the pendency of the appeal. The court's orders ensured that the Assembly would not act prematurely and that Ward's rights to a fair and complete legal process were protected.

Orders