Noye v Robbins - [2000] WASC 81

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: NOYE & ANOR -v- ROBBINS [2000] WASC 81

CORAM: MASTER SANDERSON

HEARD: 21 MARCH 2000

DELIVERED : 29 MARCH 2000

FILE NO/S: CIV 2231 of 1999

BETWEEN: JEFFREY HOWARD NOYE
First Plaintiff
LINDSAY GORDON RODDAN
Second Plaintiff
AND
STEPHEN JOHN ROBBINS
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Pleading summons - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Police Force Regulations 1979 (WA)

Restraint of Debtors Act 1984 (WA)

Result:

Pleading struck out in part

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff                :     In person
Second Plaintiff            :     In person
Defendant:     Mr T J Kavanagh

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff                :     In person
Second Plaintiff            :     In person
Defendant:     Corsers

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Bridgetown/Greenbushes Friends of the Forest Inc v Executive Director of the Department of Conservation and Land Management (1997) 18 WAR 126
Davis v Gell (1924) 35 CLR 275
Kimberley Downs Pty Ltd v State of Western Australia, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 6414; 25 August 1986
Little v Law Institute of Victoria (No 3) [1990] VR 257
Wan v Sweetman (1998) 19 WAR 94

Case(s) also cited:

Bond Corporation Ltd v Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd & Ors (1987) 71 ALR 615
Coe v Commonwealth (1979) 24 ALR 188
Commonwealth Life Assurance v Smith (1938) 59 CLR 527
Dalgetty Australia Ltd v de Vahl Rubin, unreported; FC SCt of WA; Library No 5485; 24 August 1984
Day v William Hill (Park Lane) Ltd [1949] 1 All ER 219
Fraser v Balfour (1918) 87 LJKB 1116
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways NSW (1964) 112 CLR 125
Gibbs v Rea [1983] 3 WLR 72
Glinski v McIver [1962] 1 All ER 696
Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia v Hunt (1983) 44 ALR 365
Jingellic Minerals NL v Abigroup Ltd (1992) 7 WAR 566
Leibo v Buckman [1952] 2 All ER 1057
Mann v Jacombe (1961) NSWR 273
Mohammed Amin v Jagendra Kumarbanner Jee [1947] AC 322
Niven v Grant (1903) 29 VLR 102
Packard v Transport Trading Agency Co Ltd (1912) 14 WALR 19
R v Leece (1996) 65 FCR 544
Riches v DPP [1973] 2 All ER 935
Saville v Roberts (1698) 1 Ld Raym 374

MASTER SANDERSON: This the defendant's application to strike out the plaintiffs' statement of claim. The first plaintiff was, at all material times, a police officer. He is now retired. The defendant presently is, and was at all material times, also a police officer. The claim brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant concerns certain charges laid against both plaintiffs by the defendant. The claim also relates to certain disciplinary action taken by the Police Department at the instigation of the defendant. The plaintiffs' claim is for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office. For the purposes of this pleading summons it is unnecessary to go into the details of the charges brought against the plaintiffs.
The defendant's complaints against the statement of claim can be broken down into four separate categories. First, it…

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.

Continue reading Noye v Robbins

Details

AGLC: Noye v Robbins [2000] WASC 81
Case: [2000] WASC 81
Decision Date: 29 MARCH 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Noye versus Robbins was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The matter arose from a summons served by Robbins on Noye. Robbins sought to have Noye's pleadings declared frivolous and vexatious. The dispute centred on the nature of the pleadings submitted by Noye in response to the summons, and whether they were frivolous or vexatious. The court was required to determine whether Robbins' summons was justified in seeking a declaration that Noye's pleadings were frivolous and vexatious.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Noye's pleadings were frivolous and vexatious. The court considered the criteria for determining whether pleadings were frivolous and vexatious, and whether the summons was properly grounded in fact. The court also considered whether the summons should be dismissed on the basis that it turned on its own facts. The court noted that the summons required the court to determine whether Noye's pleadings were frivolous and vexatious, but did not provide any factual basis for making such a determination.

The court held that the summons was defective because it turned on its own facts. The court noted that the summons required the court to determine whether Noye's pleadings were frivolous and vexatious, but did not provide any factual basis for making such a determination. The court held that the summons was an abuse of process and should be dismissed. The court further held that Robbins' costs of the summons should be awarded to Noye. The court held that Noye's pleadings were not frivolous or vexatious, and that Robbins' summons was an abuse of process. The court dismissed the summons and ordered Robbins to pay Noye's costs.

Orders