Kingi v Junee Correctional Centre

[2005] NSWSC 661

CITATION:	Kingi v Junee Correctional Centre [2005] NSWSC 661 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S):	5 July 2005
JUDGMENT DATE :	5 July 2005
JURISDICTION:	Common Law Division
JUDGMENT OF:	Associate Justice Malpass at 1
DECISION:	The proceedings are dismissed; no order as to costs.

PARTIES:	Koroneria Kingi (Plaintiff) Junee Correctional Centre (Defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 20371/04
COUNSEL:	N/A (Plaintiff) Mr C Davidson (Defendant)
SOLICITORS:	N/A (Plaintiff) Thomson Playford (Defendant)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

- 2 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

Associate Justice Malpass

5 July 2005

20371 of 2004 Koroneria Kingi v Junee Correctional Centre

JUDGMENT

1 His Honour: The plaintiff is a litigant in person. He has commenced proceedings in this court which seek to propound a personal injury claim. It appears that he is presently an occupant at Long Bay gaol.

2 The proceedings have been brought against a defendant which is described as Junee Correctional Centre. There is material before the court that reveals that Junee Correctional Centre is not a legal entity.

3 Whilst the process has not been served, knowledge of the proceedings came to the GEO Group Australia Pty Limited, who are the operators of Junee Correctional Centre. Mr Davidson is here today representing that company.

4 It has served a notice of motion on the plaintiff. The notice of motion seeks a variety of heads of relief, including a dismissal of the proceedings.

5 Despite being served with that notice of motion, there is no appearance today by or on behalf of the plaintiff.

6 The proceedings have now been on foot for quite some time. They have been before the court on numerous occasions. The plaintiff has had legal representation at one stage during the course of proceedings. The solicitors have since ceased to act. The plaintiff has been made aware of the problems that are facing his process in this court.

7 Not only are the proceedings brought against a non-legal entity, his handwritten statement of claim falls well short of complying with the pleading rules (inter alia, it fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action). Despite being given ample opportunity to do so, none of these problems have been addressed.

8 Further, I am told that the claim may be governed by the Civil Liability Act and that if the plaintiff does have a viable cause of action, it is a claim that would appear to be properly litigated in the District Court.

9 In the circumstances it seems to me that the interests of justice and of the court are best served if action is now taken to bring the proceedings to an end in this court. The proceedings are both liable to be struck out and dismissed.

10 It seems to me that the appropriate course to take is to dismiss the proceedings. This will bring about finality in this court and leave the plaintiff in a situation where if he desires to further press whatever claim he may have, he can do so in the appropriate jurisdiction. Accordingly, I order that the proceedings be dismissed.

11 Mr Davidson does not seek any order for costs. In the circumstances it seems to me that the appropriate order is to make no order as to the costs of the proceedings.

**********

05/07/2005 - Typographical error - Paragraph(s) 7