Legal Research
Cases
Golden v Littleproud

Golden v Littleproud

Case [2019] NSWSC 120 22 February 2019

Summary Judgment

Abuse of Process

Misfeasance in Public Office

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Tort Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Golden v Littleproud [2019] NSWSC 120
Hearing dates: 11 February 2019
Date of orders: 22 February 2019
Decision date: 22 February 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison AsJ
Decision:
The Court orders that:
(1) These proceedings are dismissed.
(2) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs on an ordinary basis.

Catchwords:
PROCEDURE – summary judgment – pleadings – defective pleadings – abuse of process – whether pleadings are frivolous or vexatious – whether pleadings are an embarrassment – whether pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action
TORT – misfeasance in public office – Commonwealth Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources – whether allegations of fact capable of supporting the elements of the tort
Legislation Cited: Racing Administration Act 1988 (NSW)
Thoroughbred Racing Act 1996 (NSW), s 4(1)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 13.4(1), 14.28, 15.3
Cases Cited: Banque Commerciale SA En Liquidation v Akhill Holdings Ltd [1990] HCA 11; (1990) 169 CLR 279
Frazer v SR7 Pty Limited [2013] NSWSC 820
Golden v V’landys [2015] NSWSC 1709
Golden v V’landys [2016] NSWCA 300
Grass v Slattery [2018] FCA 1719
Gunns Ltd v Marr [2005] VSC 251
Hannon v Afro Pacific Capital Limited [2005] NSWSC 564
McGuirk v University of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 1424
Moder v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] QCA 92
Northern Territory of Australia v Mengel (1995) 129 ALR 1
O’Brien v Bank of Western Australia Ltd [2013] NSWCA 71
O’Shane v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 315; (2013) 85 NSWLR 698
Shelton v National Roads and Motorists Association Ltd [2004] FCA 1393
Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 241 CLR 118; [2010] HCA 28
State Bank of New South Wales Ltd v Stenhouse Ltd (1997) Aust Torts Rep 81-423 (64,077)
Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England No 3 [2000] 3 All ER 1
Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 507
Texts Cited: M Aronson, “Appendix B – Misfeasance in Public Office”, available at UK Law Commission, “Misconduct in Public Office”
R P Balkin and J L R Davis, Law of Torts (5th ed, 2013, LexisNexis Butterworths
T Cockburn and M Thomas, “Personal liability of public officers in the tort of misfeasance in public office” – Part 1 (2001) 9 Torts Law Journal 1
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Joseph Golden (Plaintiff)
David Littleproud (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr S Nixon SC with Ms V Thomas
Solicitors:
J Golden (Plaintiff Self Represented)
Ashurst Australia (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2018/233167
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HER HONOUR: By notice of motion filed 7 September 2018, the defendant seeks an order dismissing the proceedings under r 13.4(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”), or alternatively, an order striking out the whole or part of the statement of claim under r 14.28 of the UCPR. The plaintiff opposes the orders sought.

Overview

The plaintiff is Joseph Golden. The…

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 Littleproud

Details

AGLC: Golden v Littleproud [2019] NSWSC 120
Case: [2019] NSWSC 120
Decision Date: 22 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Golden v Littleproud, the plaintiff sought to bring an action against the Commonwealth Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Mr Littleproud. The plaintiff alleged misfeasance in public office, asserting that the Minister had acted in bad faith and for an improper purpose in his conduct as the Minister. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the Minister sought summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff's pleadings were defective and amounted to an abuse of process.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff's pleadings were frivolous or vexatious, whether they were an embarrassment, and whether they disclosed a reasonable cause of action. The court was required to assess the sufficiency of the pleadings in relation to the tort of misfeasance in public office, and determine whether the allegations of fact were capable of supporting the elements of the tort.

The court found that the plaintiff's pleadings were defective and amounted to an abuse of process. The court held that the pleadings were frivolous and vexatious, as they were based on speculative and unfounded allegations, and did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. The court further found that the pleadings were an embarrassment, as they were poorly drafted and contained irrelevant and extraneous material. The court held that the plaintiff's allegations were not capable of supporting the elements of the tort of misfeasance in public office, as they did not demonstrate that the Minister had acted in bad faith or for an improper purpose.

As a result, the court granted the Minister's application for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's action with costs. The court held that the plaintiff's pleadings were an abuse of the court's process, and that it was not in the interests of justice to allow the action to proceed. The court also held that the Minister was entitled to costs on an indemnity basis, as the plaintiff's action was frivolous and vexatious.

Orders