Golden v Anderson (No 2) - [2023] NSWSC 339

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Golden v Anderson & Ors (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 339
Hearing dates: 3 April 2023
Date of orders: 3 April 2023
Decision date: 03 April 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Cavanagh J
Decision:
First and second defendants:
1 the plaintiff is to pay the first and second defendants’ costs of the proceedings;
2 pursuant to s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), the plaintiff is to pay the first and second defendants’ costs of the proceedings fixed in the sum of $15,000; and
3 the plaintiff is restrained from commencing in any Court or Tribunal any proceedings against either of the first or second defendants (other than by a claim in the nature of a defence, cross-claim, or cross-summons) which arise from the same or similar facts as those alleged in these proceedings, without the leave of a Judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, unless and until the plaintiff has paid the costs ordered in Order 2 above.
Fourth to sixth defendants:
4 the plaintiff is to pay the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants’ costs of the proceedings;
5 pursuant to s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act2005 (NSW), the plaintiff is to pay the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants’ costs of the proceedings fixed in the sum of $25,000; and
6 the plaintiff is restrained from commencing in any Court or Tribunal any proceedings against any of the fourth, fifth or sixth defendants (other than by a claim in the nature of a defence, cross-claim, or cross-summons) which arise from the same or similar facts as those alleged in these proceedings, without the leave of a Judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, unless and until the plaintiff has paid the costs ordered in Order 5 above.

Catchwords:
COSTS — Party/Party — Self represented litigant – application by defendants for gross sum costs orders – whether gross sum costs orders should be made
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Application to restrain plaintiff from commencing further proceedings without paying the costs of these proceedings — where plaintiff has indicated he will commence further proceedings on same or similar facts — whether a restraining order against plaintiff should be made

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 67, 98(4)(c)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 12.10

Cases Cited:
Golden v Anderson & Ors [2023] NSWSC 97
Harrison v Schipp (2002) 54 NSWLR 738
K Sheridan v Colin Biggers & Paisley [2019] NSWSC 621
Webster v Super Smart Strategies Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 531

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Joseph Paul Golden (Plaintiff)
Kevin John Anderson (First Defendant)
Dominic Perrottet (Second Defendant)
Murray Watt (Fourth Defendant)
David Littleproud (Fifth Defendant)
Barnaby Joyce (Sixth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Chordia (First and Second Defendants)
S Nixon SC with V Thomas (Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Defendants)
Solicitors:
Plaintiff (Self-represented)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (First and Second Defendants)
Ashurst Australia (Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Defendants)

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

REVISED…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Golden v Anderson (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 339
Case: [2023] NSWSC 339
Decision Date: 03 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Golden versus Anderson, the plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, brought an action against the defendants. The dispute centred on whether the defendants should be granted gross sum costs orders in their favour. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's case was without merit, vexatious, and an abuse of the court process, and sought gross sum costs orders. The plaintiff opposed the application, arguing that the case was not vexatious and that the defendants had acted unreasonably in their conduct.

The court was required to determine whether gross sum costs orders should be made against the plaintiff. The court considered the principles of costs in party/party cases, the plaintiff's conduct, and the defendants' application. The court also considered the plaintiff's indication that he intended to commence further proceedings on the same or similar facts, and whether a restraining order against the plaintiff should be made.

The court found that the plaintiff's case was not vexatious, and that the defendants had acted unreasonably in their conduct. The court held that the plaintiff's conduct did not warrant the imposition of gross sum costs orders, but that a restraining order should be made to prevent the plaintiff from commencing further proceedings without first paying the costs of these proceedings. The court found that the plaintiff's conduct was not an abuse of the court process, but that the restraining order was necessary to protect the defendants from the plaintiff's continued litigation. The court made the restraining order and dismissed the defendants' application for gross sum costs orders.

Orders