Hamzy v State of New South Wales

Case [2022] NSWSC 354


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hamzy v State of New South Wales [2022] NSWSC 354
Hearing dates: 29 March 2022
Date of orders: 29 March 2022
Decision date: 30 March 2022
Jurisdiction:Common Law
Before: Ierace J
Decision:

1. Leave granted to the plaintiff to institute proceedings against the defendant nunc pro tunc pursuant to ss 4 and 5 of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW);

2. Costs of the application to be costs in the cause.

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE – commencement of proceedings – leave to commence action – Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW) – leave sought subsequent to commencement of proceedings

Legislation Cited:

Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW), ss 4,5

Cases Cited:

Thurston v State of New South Wales [2021] NSWSC 226

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Mohammed Hamzy (Plaintiff)
State of New South Wales (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
T Meakes (Plaintiff)
J Pan (Defendant)

Solicitors:
Beston McManis Lawyers (Plaintiff)
McCabes (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2021/310888

Judgment

  1. Mohammed Hamzy (“the plaintiff”) has commenced proceedings in this Court by way of a statement of claim filed on 2 November 2021 (“the statement of claim”) seeking damages for injuries sustained when he was allegedly subject to physical and sexual abuse. The plaintiff alleges that this abuse was perpetrated by two youth officers when he was incarcerated at the Cobham Juvenile Justice Centre as a young person under 18 years of age. The plaintiff alleges that the relevant youth workers were the servants or agents of the Department of Juvenile Justice, a Department or statutory organisation of the government of the State of New South Wales. As such, the statement of claim names the State of New South Wales as the defendant in those proceedings.

  2. At the time of the institution of proceedings, the plaintiff was in custody. Accordingly, pursuant to s 4 of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW) (“the Act”), he is required to have leave of the Court before such proceedings are instituted. A notice of motion seeking orders to that effect was filed on 4 March 2022.

  3. The plaintiff brings the application now seeking leave to proceed as if leave had been sought at the time that proceedings were instituted by way of the statement of claim. It is established that leave can be granted as if it had been granted at the time of the institution of proceedings nunc pro tunc, the meaning of which is helpfully explained by Hamill J in Thurston v State of New South Wales [2021] NSWSC 226, at [3].

  4. Section 5 of the Act provides:

5   Grant of leave

A court shall not, under section 4, grant leave to a person to institute proceedings unless the court is satisfied that the proceedings are not an abuse of process and that there is prima facie ground for the proceedings.”

  1. In an evidentiary statement dated 14 December 2021, the plaintiff alleged that, whilst an inmate in the Cobham Juvenile Justice Centre, he was violently sexually assaulted by an employee, which caused him injuries that he continues to suffer. The statement of claim contains allegations of negligence and vicarious liability on the part of the defendant, resulting in injuries and disabilities to the plaintiff.

  2. The defendant does not contest that the orders should be made. I am satisfied that the proceedings are not an abuse of process and that there are prima facie grounds for the proceedings.

Orders

  1. Accordingly, I make the following orders:

  1. Leave granted to the plaintiff to institute proceedings against the defendant nunc pro tunc pursuant to ss 4 and 5 of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW);

  2. Costs of the application to be costs in the cause.

**********

Details
AGLC
Hamzy v State of New South Wales [2022] NSWSC 354
Case
[2022] NSWSC 354
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hamzy v State of New South Wales, the plaintiff sought leave to commence legal proceedings against the State of New South Wales for damages allegedly arising from actions taken by police officers in the course of an arrest. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the plaintiff, Hamzy, sought leave to pursue the action after initially commencing proceedings without the required authorisation under the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW). The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff could be granted leave to continue with the action despite the procedural error of not initially obtaining the necessary leave.

The court considered the provisions of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW) and the circumstances under which leave could be granted subsequent to the commencement of proceedings. It was necessary for the court to weigh the procedural requirements of the Act against the merits of allowing the plaintiff to pursue the action. The court examined whether there were any exceptional circumstances that warranted the grant of leave and whether the delay in seeking leave would prejudice the defendant's ability to defend the claim.

In determining the matter, the court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting the grant of leave to continue the action. The court held that the procedural requirement of obtaining leave prior to commencing proceedings was a mandatory condition that could not be overlooked. Consequently, the plaintiff's application for leave was dismissed, and the proceedings were stayed pending compliance with the statutory requirements. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory provisions designed to protect the interests of the state in civil litigation involving former offenders.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.