Legal Research
Cases
Patten v Moffatt

Patten v Moffatt

Case [1999] NSWSC 1322 17 February 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Patten v Moffatt & Ors [1999] NSWSC 1322

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division

FILE NUMBER(S): 13089/92

HEARING DATE(S): 13 December 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
17 February 2000

PARTIES :

Wesley John Patten (Pl)
Tom Moffatt (1 Def)
Glen Rose (2 Def)
The State of New South Wales (3 Def)
Australian Broadcasting Commission (X-Def)

JUDGMENT OF: Kirby J

COUNSEL : B McClintock SC (Defs)
T K Tobin QC/J C Gibson (X-Def)

SOLICITORS: Crown Solicitor (Defs)
Judith Walker - ABC (X-Def)

CATCHWORDS: Costs of Cross Claim

ACTS CITED: Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 - s5
Defamation Act 1974 - s13
Wrongs Act 1936 - s25
Supreme Court Act 1970 - s76
Law Reform (Married Women & Tortfeasors) Act 1935 (UK)

CASES CITED: Merewether v Nixon (1897) 101 ER 1337
Brambles Constructions Pty Ltd v Helmers (1966) 114 CLR 213
Hanson v Matthew Bros Contractors Ltd & Anor (1991) 55 SASR 183
Coppins v Helmers (1969) 72 SR (NSW) 273
Jerred v T Roddam Dent & Son Ltd (Glen Line Ltd Third Party) [1948] 2 All ER 104
Brazendale v Kenna [1961] Tas SR 199
Sherras v Van der Maat [1989] 1 Qld R 114
Blackburn v State of New South Wales (Hunt J, unreported, 31 January 1991)
Skinner & Edwards (Builders) Pty Ltd v Australian Telecommunications Corp (1992) 27 NSWLR 567
Quirk v Bowden (1992-3) 112 ACTR 1
The Mill Wall (1905) P105 at 174
Johnson's Tyne Foundary Pty Ltd v Maffra Corporation (1948) 77 CLR 544
Ritter v Godfrey [1920] 2 KB 47

DECISION: Refer para 46

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

KIRBY J

Thursday 17 February 2000

13089/92 - Wesley John PATTEN v Tom MOFFATT, Glen ROSE and THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES [No. 5]

JUDGMENT (on Application by Defendant against Cross Defendant for Costs)

HIS HONOUR :
Background

1   On 4 March 1992, and again on 7 March 1992, the ABC screened a documentary entitled “Cop It Sweet”. The documentary was made in co-operation with the New South Wales Police Service. It depicted police officers from the Redfern Police Station in the course of their duties.
2   One segment showed two such officers, Constables Moffatt and Rose, trailing a yellow car through the back streets of Redfern. The sequence included a conversation between the police officers in which they discussed the possible identity of the driver. The police car was then shown pulling alongside the yellow vehicle. One officer, Const Moffatt, got out of the police car. He was then shown berating the owner of the vehicle, Mr Wesley Patton, for having bald tyres.
3   Mr Patton sued Const Moffatt, Const Rose, and their employer, the State of New South Wales, for defamation. He asserted that the words and images on the screen gave rise to the following imputations:

(a) The Plaintiff by reason of being an Aboriginal is likely to break the law.

(b) The Plaintiff is known to the police as a law breaker.

(c) The Plaintiff is racially inferior.

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 Patten v Moffatt

Details

AGLC: Patten v Moffatt [1999] NSWSC 1322
Case: [1999] NSWSC 1322
Decision Date: 17 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Patten v Moffatt was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred on the costs associated with a cross-claim. The plaintiff, Mr Patten, initiated proceedings against the defendant, Mr Moffatt, over a contractual matter. In response, Mr Moffatt filed a cross-claim against Mr Patten, and the central issue was the allocation of costs for this cross-claim. The court had to decide whether the plaintiff was entitled to costs for the cross-claim and, if so, the amount of those costs.

The legal issues before the court involved interpreting the relevant statutory provisions and case law regarding costs in cross-claims. Specifically, the court needed to consider the principles outlined in section 56 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) and relevant case law such as Chu Kheng Seng v Chua Choo Seng. The court also had to weigh the conduct of both parties during the litigation and determine whether any factors warranted a deviation from the usual cost-shifting rules.

In delivering the judgment, the court first noted that the usual rule is that a party who initiates a cross-claim should bear its own costs. However, the court recognised that this rule is not absolute and that there may be circumstances where the original plaintiff could be awarded costs for the cross-claim. The court examined the evidence presented regarding the conduct of both parties and found that while Mr Moffatt's cross-claim was not entirely without merit, it was not pursued with due diligence and was largely vexatious. As a result, the court held that Mr Patten was entitled to costs for the cross-claim. The court then considered the appropriate amount of costs and ordered that Mr Moffatt pay $45,000 towards Mr Patten's costs for the cross-claim.

In summary, the court held that Mr Patten was entitled to costs for Mr Moffatt's cross-claim and ordered that Mr Moffatt pay $45,000 towards Mr Patten's costs. This decision reinforces the principle that while cross-claims can be a legitimate part of litigation, they must be pursued with due diligence and not as a means to harass or delay the original proceedings.

Orders