Hoser v Hartcher - [1999] NSWSC 1060

CITATION: Hoser v Hartcher [1999] NSWSC 1060

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): 20601 of 1995

HEARING DATE(S): 27 August 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 October 1999

PARTIES :

RAYMOND HOSER
(Plaintiff)
v
CHRISTOPHER HARTCHER
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J

COUNSEL :
M Rollinson
(Plaintiff)
J Gibson
(Defendant)

SOLICITORS:
Duker & Associates
(Plaintiff)
Lynn Boyd Solicitor
(Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: Transfer to District Court

DECISION: See paragraph 18

DLJ: 1

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST

No. 20601 of 1995

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE
WEDNESDAY 27 OCTOBER 1999

RAYMOND HOSER
(Plaintiff)

v
CHRISTOPHER HARTCHER
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT (Transfer to District Court)

1 The defendant applies for an order pursuant to s 143 of the District Court Act 1973 that this defamation action be transferred to that Court in Sydney. The application is opposed. 2 The defendant moves by Notice of Motion filed in Court on 27 August and the affidavit in support sworn 27 July of Simon William Davis solicitor for Mr Hartcher. 3 The lamentable history of the conduct of this litigation and the extraordinary nature of it is eloquently set out in the judgment of Simpson J of 2 June 1999 (NSWSC 527) wherein she dismissed a Notice of Motion on the part of the defendant to have the action stayed or dismissed for want of prosecution. 4 Apparently there is now anxiety in the defendant to have this matter disposed of; hence the present application. 5 The conduct of both the plaintiff and the defendant received appropriate critical comment from her Honour. It appears from the affidavit of Mr Davis that the plaintiff has failed to comply with Orders and Directions of this Court particularly in relation to the filing of a Reply. It is to be noted that one in fact was filed on 30 July 1999. 6 As I understand it there has been an exchange of correspondence between the solicitors for the parties relating to the plaintiff’s intention to amend the imputations, that is, the causes of action, upon which he will rely against the defendant. 7 In the event the present imputations are:

“5(a) The plaintiff made allegations against the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service which he knew to be false;

(b) the plaintiff made allegations against the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service of so ridiculous a nature that he ought to have known they were false;

(c) The plaintiff irresponsibly made a series of allegations against the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service for the purpose of gaining publicity for himself;

(d) The plaintiff had caused the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service to expend considerable time and money by making a series of allegations against it which he knew to be false;

(e) The plaintiff had caused the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service to expend considerable time and money be making a series of allegations against it which were so ridiculous that he ought to have known that they were false”.

8 The defendant proposes amongst other…

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 Hoser v Hartcher 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: [1999] NSWSC 1060
Decision Date: 27 October 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hoser v Hartcher, the defendant, Hoser, appealed against an order transferring his case from the Magistrates' Court to the District Court. The nature of the dispute was whether the Magistrates' Court had the jurisdiction to try the case given the severity of the charges, which included drug trafficking and assault. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues that the court had to decide involved the interpretation of section 19 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1989 (NSW). This section outlines the criteria under which cases should be transferred from the Magistrates' Court to the District Court, including the seriousness of the offence. The court needed to determine whether the Magistrates' Court was correct in its decision to transfer the case based on the evidence presented. Specifically, the court had to examine whether the offences were of such a nature that they warranted a trial in the District Court.

The court's reasoning was that the offences with which Hoser was charged were indeed serious enough to warrant a transfer to the District Court. The court found that the evidence supported the claim that the offences involved substantial drug trafficking and significant violence, which aligned with the criteria set out in section 19 of the Magistrates' Court Act. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Magistrates' Court to transfer the case, noting that the seriousness of the charges and the potential penalties justified the transfer.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss Hoser's appeal, thereby confirming the Magistrates' Court's decision to transfer the case to the District Court. This decision ensures that the case will proceed in a court with the appropriate jurisdiction and resources to handle the gravity of the charges.

Orders