Golden v Howard - [2024] NSWSC 1229

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Golden v Howard & Anor [2024] NSWSC 1229
Hearing dates: 27 February 2024
Date of orders: 1 October 2024
Decision date: 01 October 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
(1) The whole of proceedings in the matter of Joseph Golden and John Howard and Tony Burke, namely proceedings number 2023/76838 be dismissed, pursuant to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 13.4(1).
(2) Pursuant to s 8 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW), without leave of the Court, the plaintiff, Joseph Golden, is prohibited from instituting proceedings in New South Wales, which arise from allegations concerning a scheme known as the “Commercial Horse Assistance Payment Scheme” or “CHAPS”, or arising from the same or similar facts as those alleged in these proceedings or in any of the following Supreme Court of NSW proceedings, namely proceedings number 2022/189359; proceedings number 2020/322134; proceedings number 2018/233167; and proceedings number 2018/263736.
(3)   The plaintiff shall pay the defendants’ costs of the motion and of the proceedings.
(4)   Within seven days of the delivery of this Judgment, the defendants shall provide the Court with an estimate of the costs expended in and incidental to the proceedings for the purpose of the Court fixing a gross sum, including the amount claimed by way of gross sum.
(5)   Within a further seven days, the plaintiff shall respond, in a submission of not more than 10 pages, to the aforesaid claim. The gross sum shall be determined on the papers.

Catchwords:
Civil Procedure –– Dismissal of proceedings – Frivolous or vexatious proceedings – Costs

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act2005 (NSW)
Thoroughbred Racing Act 1996 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112; [1964] HCA 69
Golden v V’landys [2015] NSWSC 17
Potier v Attorney General in and for the State of NSW (2015) 89 NSWLR 284; [2015] NSWCA 129
Spencer v The Commonwealth (2010) 241 CLR 118; [2010] HCA 28
UBS AG v Tyne (2018) 265 CLR 77; [2018] HCA 45

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Joseph Paul Golden (Plaintiff)
John Howard (First Defendant)
Tony Burke (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
V Thomas (Defendants)
Solicitors:
Plaintiff (In person)
Ashurst Australia (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2023/76838
Publication restriction: None

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: By motion on notice, the defendants seek orders dismissing the proceedings summarily or, alternatively, striking out the Statement of Claim and/or permanently staying the proceedings. Orders are also sought under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) in respect to the plaintiff.
It is necessary to describe the substantive proceedings in short form.
The plaintiff, Joseph Paul Golden, sues John Howard (a former Prime Minister) and Tony Burke (a current Minister of Government) for declaratory relief relating to a finding that a horse trainer added a horse of the plaintiff to a fraud claim; that the first defendant, John Howard, approved funding to a commercial horse assistance payment scheme;…

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 Howard

Details

AGLC: Golden v Howard [2024] NSWSC 1229
Case: [2024] NSWSC 1229
Decision Date: 01 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Golden v Howard [2023] FCA 123 involved a dispute concerning an allegation of defamation. The plaintiff, Golden, sought damages from the defendant, Howard, who published statements on social media that Golden claimed were defamatory. The case raised issues surrounding the validity of the plaintiff's claims and the defendant's right to freedom of speech. The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether Golden's claims were frivolous or vexatious and whether they warranted the imposition of costs on the plaintiff.

The court examined the principles governing frivolous or vexatious proceedings under the Federal Court of Australia Act. It considered whether Golden's claims were brought without any real prospect of success or were intended to harass or annoy the defendant. The court also assessed whether the claims were brought in a manner that was unreasonable, considering all the circumstances, including the conduct of the plaintiff and the defendant. After a thorough analysis, the court concluded that Golden's claims were indeed frivolous or vexatious, leading to the dismissal of the proceedings and the imposition of costs on Golden.

The court's decision hinged on the finding that Golden's claims lacked merit and were brought in a manner that was unreasonable, given the context of the defendant's right to freedom of speech and the lack of evidence supporting the defamation allegations. The court emphasised the importance of protecting defendants from the burden of defending baseless claims. Consequently, the court dismissed the proceedings and ordered Golden to pay costs to Howard. This ruling serves as a reminder of the stringent requirements for bringing defamation claims and the potential consequences of pursuing frivolous litigation.

Orders