Lindsay Arthur Maynes & Anor v Samuel Ian Casey

LINDSAY ARTHUR MAYNES & ANOR
v
SAMUEL IAN CASEY & ANOR
[2011] HCASL 173
S247/2011

The applicants resided in the area of a particular Council which issued to them Local Court summonses for the recovery of unpaid rates. The second respondent was a solicitor acting on the instructions of the Council. The first respondent was a process server who was the son of the second respondent. The first respondent arrived at the applicants' property one Sunday evening. The applicants claimed that he had driven past a sign warning against trespassers, and that he had behaved in an aggressive way causing the applicants to fear for their safety. The applicants claimed that the respondents had breached their privacy by returning on a number of occasions to their property or to a public road which ran through their property. The applicants claimed that any implied consent for the respondents to enter their property had been revoked prior to their entry. This revocation was said to have been effected by signs at the boundaries of the property, correspondence to the local newspaper two years before the alleged trespass, and correspondence to the Council.
The applicants commenced District Court proceedings alleging trespass, assault and breach of privacy. Sidis DCJ rejected their claims on factual grounds.
The applicants filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. That Notice of Appeal was dismissed as incompetent on the ground that the relevant monetary threshold was not established. Allsop P and Basten JA refused leave to appeal on the ground that there was no reasonable prospect of challenging the factual findings that the first and second respondents were not aware of the correspondence to the newspaper or to the Council. Nor was it possible to overturn the factual finding that the sign was ineffective and that the first respondent had not seen it. The Court also pointed to the difficulty in overturning other factual findings of the trial judge and to the likelihood that the quantum of damages would be small even if the findings were overturned.
The papers filed in support of the applicants' application for special leave to appeal to this Court do not demonstrate any respect in which the Court of Appeal's reasoning is likely to be held erroneous if special leave were granted. Nor is any point of law identified which would enjoy any prospect of success in this Court.
The application is dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

J.D. Heydon
26 October 2011 V.M. Bell

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Lindsay Arthur Maynes and another, brought proceedings against Samuel Ian Casey and another, who were acting on behalf of a Council, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicants alleged that the respondents had trespassed on their property, committed assault, and breached their privacy by returning to their property on multiple occasions. The applicants argued that any implied consent for the respondents to enter their property had been revoked prior to their entry. The District Court dismissed the applicants' claims on factual grounds, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants' appeal on the grounds that there was no reasonable prospect of success. The applicants sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia, but their application was dismissed. The High Court found that the applicants had not demonstrated any error in the Court of Appeal's reasoning or identified any point of law that would have a prospect of success in the High Court.

The legal issues in this case included whether the applicants had established a claim of trespass, assault, and breach of privacy against the respondents. The applicants argued that the respondents had entered their property without consent and had acted in an aggressive manner, causing the applicants to fear for their safety. The applicants also argued that any implied consent for the respondents to enter their property had been revoked prior to their entry. The respondents argued that they had entered the applicants' property with consent and that their actions were reasonable in the circumstances. The legal issues also included whether the applicants had established a reasonable prospect of success in their appeal to the Court of Appeal and whether the Court of Appeal had erred in its reasoning.

The High Court found that the applicants had not demonstrated any error in the Court of Appeal's reasoning or identified any point of law that would have a prospect of success in the High Court. The Court found that the applicants had not established a claim of trespass, assault, or breach of privacy against the respondents. The Court found that the applicants had not demonstrated that the respondents had acted in an aggressive manner or that any implied consent for the respondents to enter their property had been revoked prior to their entry. The Court found that the Court of Appeal had correctly applied the relevant legal principles and that there was no reasonable prospect of success in the applicants' appeal. The Court also found that the Court of Appeal had not erred in its reasoning and that the applicants' application for special leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

The High Court dismissed the applicants' application for special leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 of the Supreme Court Rules, the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the application for special leave to appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established