McGinn v Cranbrook School (No 2) - [2015] NSWSC 1485

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: McGinn v Cranbrook School (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1485
Hearing dates: 2 & 8 October 2015
Date of orders: 08 October 2015
Decision date: 08 October 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hall J
Decision:
An Order made that the proceedings on the summons filed on 22 July 2015, including the pleadings, affidavits, transcript and the Reasons for Judgment delivered on 2 October 2015, be suppressed pursuant to sections 7 and 8 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010.

The Order is to operate throughout the Commonwealth of Australia and is to continue to operate until further order of the Court.
The Suppression Order does not apply to this judgment
Catchwords:
PROCEDURE – civil – application for strike out or summary dismissal – whether proceedings were frivolous or vexatious – whether pleadings disclosed reasonable cause of action – no reasonable cause of action disclosed – proceedings summarily dismissed pursuant to UCPR r 13.4(1)
SUPPRESSION ORDERS – previous judgment in proceedings suppressed until date of adjourned hearing under Courts Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 – reasons for suppression – further suppression order under s 8 of the Act made to continue until further order – consideration of what interests of justice required in the circumstances of the case – the need to protect the interest of an under-aged person (a minor) against direct or indirect identification through publication of the proceedings constituted an interest that outweighed the open-justice-principle
Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010
Cases Cited: Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 403
Category: Consequential orders (other than Costs)
Parties: Sophia McGinn (Plaintiff)
Cranbrook School (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Self-Represented (Plaintiff)
J Watson; R May (Defendant)
A Dawson (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Self-Represented (Plaintiff)
Fraser Clancy Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2015/214153

Judgment

These proceedings were commenced by summons filed on 22 July 2015. The plaintiff's claim was based upon alleged breach of contract by the defendant. The plaintiff's breach of contract claim pleaded a breach of duty primarily based upon statements she alleged were made to her, initially by one and then later by a second member of staff of the defendant school. The alleged statements were the subject of emails sent by her on 8 and 30 June 2015.
The proceedings did not otherwise allege or involve:

(1) impropriety by conduct by any members of the staff of the defendant towards students or to any other person, or

(2) any issue as to the conduct of the plaintiff's son, a young person. Insofar as the evidence enables any conclusion to be made concerning him, it indicates he is a young person of unblemished character.

Accordingly, no adverse findings could have been or were made in these proceedings with respect to any of the persons referred in (1) and (2) above.
Application was made by the defendant school for the dismissal of the proceedings pursuant to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules Part 13, Rule 4(1) on the ground that the proceedings 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 McGinn v Cranbrook School (No 2) 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: [2015] NSWSC 1485
Decision Date: 08 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of McGinn v Cranbrook School (No 2) involved an application for the strike-out or summary dismissal of proceedings brought against Cranbrook School. The applicant, McGinn, sought damages for alleged abuse at the hands of a former teacher at the school. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The legal issues before the court were whether the proceedings were frivolous or vexatious and whether the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the proceedings were both frivolous and vexatious and that the pleadings did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. In reaching this decision, the court examined the particulars of the claim and found that they did not contain sufficient information to establish a cause of action. The court also noted that the claim was an abuse of process, as it was brought without any reasonable prospects of success. As a result, the court summarily dismissed the proceedings under rule 13.4(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). Additionally, the court made an order for the suppression of the proceedings under section 8 of the Courts Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) to protect the interests of an under-aged person. This order was made to continue until further order, balancing the open-justice-principle against the need to protect the minor from direct or indirect identification through publication of the proceedings.

Orders