Haynes by her tutor Lindley v Haynes - [2020] NSWSC 358

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Haynes by her tutor Lindley v Haynes [2020] NSWSC 358
Hearing dates: 6 April 2020
Date of orders: 06 April 2020
Decision date: 06 April 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Davies J
Decision:
1. Leave to the Plaintiff to reproduce and use in evidence in proceedings before the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom, the following documents:

a. Statement of Claim filed in these proceedings;

b. Statement of Particulars filed in these proceedings; and

c. The criminal record of the Defendant produced by the NSW Police Service in answer to Subpoena returnable before this Court on 6 March, 2020.
2. Costs to be costs in the cause.
Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – subpoenas – undertaking in relation to documents produced – whether leave should be granted to use documents in another court – personal injury proceedings seeking damages for sexual abuse by plaintiff’s father – father convicted of multiple offences – defendant’s criminal record produced under subpoena by NSW Police - Mareva injunction sought in the United Kingdom to prevent dissipation of proceeds of pending sale of defendant’s property – where a need for defendant’s criminal record to be placed before court in the United Kingdom – leave granted to use criminal record in Mareva injunction proceedings
Legislation Cited: Nil
Cases Cited: Premier Travel v Satellite Centres of Australia [2004] NSWSC 864
The Home Office v Harman [1983] 1 AC 280
Wellness Pty Limited v Hamilton-Bond and Ors [2002] NSWSC 1259
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Jennifer Margaret Linda Haynes by her tutor Karen Lindley (Plaintiff)
Richard John Haynes (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
L Goodchild – ex parte (Plaintiff)
Solicitors:
G Gooden (Plaintiff)

File Number(s): 2019/00131818
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The plaintiff commenced these proceedings on 29 April 2019. She seeks damages in relation to physical and psychological injury she suffered at the hands of the defendant who was her father. It is not necessary to detail the claims made; it is sufficient to note that the claims arise out of the sexual abuse of the plaintiff by the defendant over a number of years when she was aged between about 4 and 11 years. The defendant pleaded guilty on 1 March 2019 to a very large number of offences charged, and was sentenced later that year to an overall term of imprisonment of 45 years.
The plaintiff's solicitor became aware earlier this year that the defendant owned a property in Darlington in County Durham in the United Kingdom. The solicitor became aware that the defendant had appointed somebody as his attorney in order to effect the sale of that property. In those circumstances, the plaintiff's solicitor retained solicitors in England who in turn made an application for a Mareva injunction in the High Court of Justice. That injunction was granted ex-parte on 23 March 2020. The matter is shortly to return to the High Court of Justice with the defendant and his attorney having been notified of 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Haynes by her tutor Lindley v Haynes and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] NSWSC 358
Decision Date: 06 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Haynes by her tutor Lindley v Haynes, the dispute involves a personal injury claim by the plaintiff, represented by her tutor, against the defendant, her father. The central issue is whether the court should grant leave to use the defendant's criminal record, which was produced under a subpoena from the NSW Police, in Mareva injunction proceedings in the United Kingdom. The primary legal issue before the court was whether it should grant leave for the use of the defendant's criminal record in the United Kingdom proceedings, given the necessity of such evidence in those proceedings.

The court considered the relevance and necessity of the defendant's criminal record in the Mareva injunction proceedings. The court acknowledged the defendant's conviction for multiple offences and the potential for the dissipation of proceeds from the sale of his property. Given the need for the criminal record to be placed before the court in the United Kingdom, the court concluded that there was a compelling reason to grant leave for its use. The court recognised the importance of ensuring that the proceedings in the United Kingdom could proceed effectively and that the criminal record would be relevant and necessary for those proceedings.

Consequently, the court granted leave for the defendant's criminal record to be used in the Mareva injunction proceedings in the United Kingdom. This decision recognises the interconnectedness of the proceedings and the necessity of the evidence in question for the proper administration of justice in both jurisdictions. The court's decision ensures that the relevant evidence can be properly considered in the Mareva injunction proceedings, thereby facilitating the resolution of the defendant's liability in the context of the personal injury claim.

Orders