Jackson & Ors v Johnson & Ors & Scott v Johnson & Ors - [2010] SASC 133

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Application)
JACKSON & ORS v JOHNSON & ORS & SCOTT v JOHNSON & ORS
[2010] SASC 133
Judgment of The Honourable Justice White
11 May 2010
PROCEDURE - COURTS AND JUDGES GENERALLY - JUDGES - OTHER MATTERS
Application by newspaper for access to statements of claim in proceedings - application of s 131 Supreme Court Act 1935 - consideration of what constitutes process relating to proceedings - whether a statement of claim constitutes a process relating to proceedings.
Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) s 5, s 46A, s 109, s 118, s 131; Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1972 (SA); Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW); Supreme Court Rules 1987 (SA) r 8; Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) r 312; Statutes Amendment (Courts) Act 1995 (SA), referred to.
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Ryde Local Court (2005) 62 NSWLR 512; John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Police Tribunal (NSW) (1986) 5 NSWLR 465; Boilermakers' Society of South Australia v Brisbane Welding Works Pty Ltd (1965) Qd R 598; R v Berger (Unreported judgment, 11 March 1997, judgment No D3569); Conroys Smallgoods v Channel Seven Adelaide (No 1) [2004] SADC 152; E v SE [2007] SASC 198, considered.

WORDS AND PHRASES CONSIDERED/DEFINED
"Process", "any process relating to proceedings"

JACKSON & ORS v JOHNSON & ORS & SCOTT v JOHNSON & ORS
[2010] SASC 133
Civil

WHITE J: Section 131(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) (SCA) entitles a member of the public to inspect or obtain a copy of certain documents in proceedings before the Court. Under s 131(1)(aa), those documents include “any process relating to proceedings and forming part of the court’s records”. This decision concerns a dispute as to whether two statements of claim come within that description.
I have concluded that members of the public are entitled to inspect and to obtain copies of the two statements of claim in question. My reasons for that conclusion follow.
Two Proceedings Under the Inheritance Family Provision Act 1972
On 17 September 2009 the plaintiff in Action No SCCIV-09-1420 commenced proceedings in this Court seeking relief under the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1972 (SA) (the IFP Act) in relation to the estate of the late Archibald Allan Scott (the deceased). The plaintiff is the deceased’s third daughter. Since the commencement of the proceedings, further persons have made claims of a similar nature and have been added as plaintiffs to the action. In particular, on 19 February 2010 the deceased’s eldest daughter (the first daughter) made a claim under the IFP Act by filing a statement of claim in the proceedings.
On 3 February 2010, the deceased’s second wife (Mrs Scott) commenced separate proceedings, also claiming relief under IFP Act in relation to his estate (Action No SCCIV-10-181). A statement of claim was attached to the summons.
The Request for Access
By letter dated 9 April 2010 solicitors acting for the Sunday Mail requested “access” to four documents, and were…

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 Jackson & Ors v Johnson & Ors & Scott v Johnson & Ors 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: [2010] SASC 133
Decision Date: 11 May 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Jackson & Ors v Johnson & Ors & Scott v Johnson & Ors, the applicant, the Sunday Mail, sought access to statements of claim filed in court proceedings, challenging the respondents' objections. The Supreme Court of South Australia considered the application under s 131 of the Supreme Court Act 1935, which allows for access to court records. The central legal issue was the interpretation of "any process relating to proceedings" in the context of s 131(1)(aa), specifically whether a statement of claim constitutes a process. The Court examined the ordinary meaning of "process" in legal contexts and compared it with the definitions and usages of the word in other sections of the Supreme Court Act. The Court concluded that "process" typically refers to documents that invoke court jurisdiction or compel attendance, rather than all documents filed in proceedings.

The Court examined the broad principle of open justice and its implications for court records and proceedings. It noted that the principle of open justice mandates that the administration of justice occurs in open court and that fair and accurate reports of courtroom events should not be discouraged. The Court considered the diversity of meanings of "process" and ultimately found that in the context of s 131(1)(aa), "process" likely refers to documents that invoke court jurisdiction or compel attendance, rather than all documents filed in proceedings. The Court ruled that the Sunday Mail is entitled to inspect and obtain copies of the statements of claim filed by the first daughter in Action No SCCIV-09-1420 and by the second daughter in Action No SCCIV-10-181, as these statements of claim constitute "process" within the meaning of s 131(1)(aa). The Court left open the question of whether the Sunday Mail is also entitled to access the amended statement of claim filed by Mrs Scott.

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

I note that since the Court heard the submissions in this matter, Mrs Scott has filed an amended statement of claim. I will give the parties an opportunity to make submissions as to whether the Sunday Mail is also entitled to access to the amended statement of claim.Conclusion For the reasons given above, I rule that the Sunday Mail is entitled, under s 131(1)(aa) to inspect and to obtain a copy of the statement of claim filed by the first daughter on 19 February 2010 [FDN 16] in Action No SCCIV-09-1420, and to inspect and obtain a copy of the statement of claim attached to the summons filed in the Court on 3 February 2010 in Action No SCCIV-10-181.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

The principle of open justice is well known. In John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Police Tribunal (NSW), McHugh J spoke of the principle in the following terms:The fundamental rule of the common law is that the administration of justice must take place in open court. A court can only depart from this rule when its observance would frustrate the administration of justice or some other public interest for whose protection Parliament has modified the open justice rule. The principle of open justice also requires that nothing should be done to discourage the making of fair and accurate reports of what occurs in the courtroom.[2]I shall return to the implications of the open justice principle in relation to the process held on the Court’s files later in these reasons.[2] (1986) 5 NSWLR 465 at 476-7.Consideration The parties’ submissions focussed on the words “any process relating to proceedings”. The parties seemed to accept that the Court’s file relating to a particular action comprised, at least in part, “the court’s records” within the meaning of s 131(1)(aa). The word “process” has a variety of meanings. The diversity of meanings of the word when used in relation to legal proceedings alone is seen in the Macquarie Dictionary definition:3Law a. the summons, mandate, or writ by which a defendant or thing is brought before the court for litigation. b. the total of such summoning writs. c. the whole course of the proceedings in an action at law.On this definition, “process” may at its narrowest be the summons or equivalent by which a defendant is brought before a court. At its widest, it may encompass the whole course of a legal proceeding. This broad meaning is inapt in relation to s 131(1)(aa) as it is plain that it contemplates a document which is capable of being inspected and copied, rather than a course of proceeding. In ordinary usage, the word “process” in the context of legal proceedings is commonly understood as a reference to the documents by which a prosecutor or litigant invokes the court’s jurisdiction, or by which a person compels the attendance of a person or the production of a thing at court, to interlocutory applications in the course of proceedings, and to documents embodying an order made by the court which will be served on a person or executed in some way. See for example the discussion of the word “process” by Gibbs J in Boilermakers’ Society of Australia v Brisbane Welding Works Pty Ltd.[3] The word “process” is not usually understood to encompass all documents, of whatever nature, filed by the parties in the proceedings.[3] [1965] Qd R 598 at 605-6. A conclusion that the word “process” is used in s 131(1)(aa) with this ordinary meaning is supported by a consideration of other provisions in the SCA. For example, the word “defendant” is defined in s 5(1) of the SCA to include “every person served with any writ of summons or process”, and s 109 speaks of the “due execution of …. judgments, decrees, orders and processes” of the Court. Similarly, s 118 permits the issue, service or execution of any “process” of the Court on a Sunday as well as on any other day, and s 118A speaks of service of “process”. The usage of the word “process” in ss 118 and 118A is particularly important because those sections were put into their present form by the Statutes Amendment (Courts) Act 1995 (SA), which was also the amending Act by which s 131(1)(aa) was inserted into the SCA. These usages are not absolutely inconsistent with the word “process” having some broader meaning which may encompass a pleading, but in general they suggest that the word “process” is used in the way which I outlined earlier.