Niven v SS

[2006] NSWCA 338

New South Wales

Court of Appeal

CITATION:	Niven v SS [2006] NSWCA 338 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S):	24 October 2006
JUDGMENT DATE:	30 November 2006
JUDGMENT OF:	Beazley JA at 1; Giles JA at 3; Tobias JA at 4
DECISION:	Appeal dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS:	DAMAGES – damages arising from indecent assault of a minor – civil proceedings conducted prior to criminal proceedings – where defendant in both proceedings sought stay in civil proceedings until completion of hearing of criminal proceedings – stay refused – whether refusal of stay amounted to a denial of procedural fairness – DAMAGES – aggravated damages – exemplary damages – future economic loss – general damages – assessment – principles – whether excessive – CIVIL PROCEDURE – stay application – principles – guidelines enunciated in McMahon v Gould (1982) 7 ACLR 202 – whether miscarriage of discretion
LEGISLATION CITED:	Crimes Act 1900, ss 61J(1), 61M(1), 61N(1) Criminal Procedure Act 1986, ss 9, 93
CASES CITED:	Baker v Commissioner of Federal Police (2000) 104 FCR 359 Daniels v Thompson [1998] 3 NZLR 22 Gray v Motor Accident Commission (1998) 196 CLR 1 Halabi v Westpac Banking Corporation (1989) 17 NSWLR 26 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 James v Hill [2004] NSWCA 301 McMahon v Gould (1982) 7 ACLR 202 Regina v Prasad (1979) 235 ASR 161 Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129 W v W [1999] 2 NZLR 1 Yuill v Spedley Securities Ltd (in liq) (1992) 8 ACSR 272
PARTIES:	Arthur Bruce Niven SS
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40111/06
COUNSEL:	A: G Flick SC / E Petersen R: R Toner SC / C Heazlewood
SOLICITORS:	A: Blaxland Mawson & Rose, Cooma R: Griffiths Tierney, Bega
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):	DC 12/04 (Bega District Court)
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:	Neilson DCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:	11 November 2005

CA 40111/06
DC 12/04 (Bega)

BEAZLEY JA
GILES JA
TOBIAS JA

Thursday 30 November 2006

ARTHUR BRUCE NIVEN v SS

Judgment

1 BEAZLEY JA: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the judgment of Tobias JA with whose reasons and proposed orders I agree.

2 I wish, however, to make one observation. Kirby P in Yuill v Spedley Securities Ltd (in liq) (1992) 8 ACSR 272 at 274 commented upon the public interest in the primacy of the administration of criminal justice and the fact that McMahon v Gould (1982) 7 ACLR 202, which governs the outcome of this case, may not sufficiently reflect that public interest. I consider that there is force in Kirby P’s comment, although this case is neither the occasion to reconsider McMahon v Gould, nor, in my opinion, would there have been any different result, for the reasons given by Tobias JA.

3 GILES JA: I agree with Tobias JA.

4 TOBIAS JA: By Ordinary Statement of Claim filed on 30 November…