Paul Wilson v State of New South Wales
[2005] NSWSC 190
•10 March 2005
CITATION: Paul Wilson v State of New South Wales [2005] NSWSC 190
HEARING DATE(S): 10 March 2005
JUDGMENT DATE :
10 March 2005JURISDICTION: Common Law Division
JUDGMENT OF: Master Malpass at 1
DECISION: 1. The proceedings are dismissed; 2. The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the proceedings; 3. The plaintiff is not to file any further process in this Court without prior leave from a Judge.
PARTIES: Paul Wilson (Plaintiff)
State of New South Wales (Defendant)FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20298/04
COUNSEL: In person (Plaintiff)
Mr P Griffin (Defendant)SOLICITORS: N/A (Plaintiff)
I V Knight Crown Solicitor (Defendant)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
Master Malpass
10 March 2005
JUDGMENT20298 of 2004 Paul Wilson v State of New South Wales
1 Master: The plaintiff appears in person. He commenced these proceedings by handwritten document filed on 24 August 2004. On 30 September 2004 he filed an amended handwritten document. It is headed “Statement of Claim amended”.
2 On 24 December 2004 the defendant moved by notice of motion to have the proceedings stayed or dismissed or struck out. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Karen Susan Burke.
3 The proceedings brought by the plaintiff are confronted by a variety of problems. It appears from the material before me that the defendant has done its best to bring these problems to his attention. I shall mention certain of them.
4 The pleading filed in this court must satisfy the requirements of Pt 15 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970. It must inter alia disclose a reasonable cause of action. The document relied on by the plaintiff falls well short of satisfying the requirements of the Rules and does not disclose a reasonable cause of action. In the circumstances the document is liable to be struck out.
5 The material before the court reveals that what is sought to be litigated in these proceedings has been the subject of two earlier unsuccessful proceedings. The first was dealt with by Registrar Howe on 30 July 2004. The second was dealt with by Master Harrison on 20 September 2004.
6 The proceedings are clearly vexatious and an abuse of process. As such they are liable to be dismissed.
7 Costs orders were made against the plaintiff in those proceedings. The costs remain unpaid.
8 If the proceedings are not dismissed the defendant would be entitled to a stay.
9 Apart from these problems the document contains material that renders it liable to be struck out pursuant to Pt 65 r 4.
10 In addition to the matters that I have already mentioned, whatever claims that the plaintiff may have had are now statute barred.
11 In the circumstances of this case, it seems to me that I have no alternative but to dismiss the proceedings and I make that order. The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the proceedings. The plaintiff is not to file any further process in this court without prior leave from a Judge.
0
0
0