Golden v Littleproud

Case

[2019] NSWSC 120

22 February 2019


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Golden v Littleproud [2019] NSWSC 120 [2019] NSWSC 120 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.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Civil Litigation & Procedure

  • Tort Law

Legal Concepts

  • Summary Judgment

  • Abuse of Process

  • Misfeasance in Public Office

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Most Recent Citation
Golden v Howard [2025] NSWCA 117

Cases Citing This Decision

10

Golden v Howard [2025] NSWCA 117
Golden v Howard [2023] NSWSC 1418
Golden v Anderson [2023] NSWSC 97
Cases Cited

18

Statutory Material Cited

3

Golden v V'landys [2015] NSWSC 1709
Golden v V'landys [2016] NSWCA 300