Golden v Anderson - [2023] NSWSC 97

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Golden v Anderson & Ors [2023] NSWSC 97
Hearing dates: 6 February 2023
Date of orders: 6 February 2023
Decision date: 06 February 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Cavanagh J
Decision:
(1) The proceedings are dismissed.
(2) I direct that within 7 days, the defendants file their written submissions in relation to costs and any ancillary orders and give notice to the plaintiff of what orders they are seeking.
(3) The plaintiff is to file its written submissions 7 days after receipt of the defendants’ submissions on the question of costs and any ancillary orders.
(4) The matter is listed on a date and time to be fixed for the purpose of hearing submissions as to costs.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Summary disposal — Dismissal of proceedings — Abuse of process – defective pleadings – whether pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action TORT – whether allegations of fact capable of supporting the elements of the tort

Legislation Cited:
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 6.29, 13.4, 14.28

Cases Cited:
General Steel Industries v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
Golden v Koffel [2021] NSWSC 739
Golden v Littleproud [2019] NSWSC 120
Golden v V’landys [2015] NSWSC 1709
Golden v V’landys [2016] NSWCA 300
Golden v V’landys (No 2) [2016] NSWCA 350
Golden v V’landys [2019] NSWSC 1362
Golden v V’landys [2020] NSWCA 120
Magill v Magill [2006] HCA 51

Texts Cited:
None

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Joseph Paul Golden (Plaintiff)
Kevin John Anderson (First Defendant)
Dominic Perrottet (Second Defendant)
Chris Gulaptis (Third Defendant)
Murray Watt (Fourth Defendant)
David Littleproud (Fifth Defendant)
Barnaby Joyce (Sixth Defendant)
Kevin Hogan (Seventh Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Chordia (First and Second Defendants)
S Nixon SC with L Thomas (Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Defendants)
Solicitors:
Plaintiff (Self-represented)
Crown Solicitors Office (First and Second Defendants)
Ashurst Australia (Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Defendants)

File Number(s): 2022/189359
Publication restriction: None

REVISED EX TEMPORE Judgment

Before the Court are two motions, both filed on 14 September 2022, being:

a motion filed on behalf of the first and second defendants seeking orders that the proceedings be summarily dismissed or, in the alternative, that the amended statement of claim filed 27 July 2022 be struck out, as well as ancillary orders; and

a similar motion filed on behalf of the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants also seeking orders that the proceedings be dismissed or, in the alternative, struck out and ancillary orders.

Ms Chordia appears on behalf of the first and second defendants. Mr Nixon SC appears with Ms Thomas for the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants. Mr Golden again appears unrepresented. There is no appearance for the third or seventh defendants, albeit the other defendants are seeking orders that the proceedings as a whole be dismissed.
By way of an amended statement of claim filed on 27 July 2022, the plaintiff seeks orders against seven defendants in the nature of declarations, damages and costs. The proceedings arise out of,…

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 Golden v Anderson

Details

AGLC: Golden v Anderson [2023] NSWSC 97
Case: [2023] NSWSC 97
Decision Date: 06 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Golden, the plaintiff, and Anderson, the defendant. Golden sought damages for alleged defamatory statements made by Anderson. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the court was required to determine whether the proceedings should be summarily dismissed due to an abuse of process and whether the plaintiff's pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's statement of claim was defective and did not adequately plead the elements of defamation.

The court considered the criteria for summary dismissal and the requirements for a statement of claim to disclose a reasonable cause of action. It examined whether the plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to establish a prima facie case of defamation. The court determined that the plaintiff's pleadings were indeed defective, as they failed to adequately specify the defamatory statements and how they had caused harm. The court concluded that the pleadings did not disclose a reasonable cause of action for defamation.

Consequently, the court dismissed the proceedings for abuse of process. The judge held that the plaintiff's failure to properly plead the elements of defamation led to an abuse of the court's process. The court found that the proceedings should be summarily dismissed as there was no reasonable prospect of the plaintiff succeeding on the merits. The defendant's motion for summary dismissal was therefore granted.

Orders