Penrith Rugby League Club Ltd v Brown
[2004] NSWSC 990
•14 October 2004
CITATION: Penrith Rugby League Club Ltd v Brown [2004] NSWSC 990 HEARING DATE(S): 14 October 2004 JUDGMENT DATE:
14 October 2004JURISDICTION:
EquityJUDGMENT OF: Hamilton J DECISION: Declarations made consequential on substantive judgment. CATCHWORDS: ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS [9] - General matters - Other matters - Registered clubs - Allegation about any corrupt or other improper conduct in relation to a registered Club - Inquiry arranged under s 41X of the Registered Clubs Act 1976 by the Director of Liquor and Gaming - Whether inquiry may make finding in terms of corrupt or other improper conduct - Whether Director may determine as a matter that is to be the subject of an inquiry whether or not there has been corrupt or improper conduct by any person - Form of orders. CASES CITED: Penrith Rugby League Club Ltd v Brown [2004] NSWSC 932 PARTIES :
Penrith Rugby League Club Ltd (1P)
Penrith District Rugby League Football Club Ltd (2P)
Kenneth Maxwell Brown (1D)
Ian Douglas Temby (2D)
Roger Maxwell Cowan (3D)FILE NUMBER(S): SC 4553/04 COUNSEL: T M Lynch (Ps)
P F Singleton (1D)
Submitting appearance (2D)
J de Mestre, Solicitor (3D)SOLICITORS: Back Schwartz Vaughan (Ps)
I V Knight (1 & 2Ds)
John de Mestre & Co (3D)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
HAMILTON J
THURSDAY, 14 OCTOBER 2004
4553/04 PENRITH RUGBY LEAGUE CLUB LIMITED & ANOR v KENNETH MAXWELL BROWN & ORS
JUDGMENT ON DECLARATIONS
1 HIS HONOUR: There have been three matters raised this morning in respect of the form of declarations 1 and 2 as they have been presented to me in short minutes of orders to be made as a result of my substantive judgment: Penrith Rugby League Club Ltd v Brown [2004] NSWSC 932. The first was raised by me. That was that I indicated that I was inclined to include the words “by any person” after the words “corrupt or other improper conduct” towards the end of each of the declarations. My decision turned in part on the principle that the rights and reputations of individuals should be preserved and the debate before me took place in those terms. There really was no debate as to the situation in the case of a finding of corrupt or other improper conduct in an inchoate way, not indicating who engaged in the conduct. I do not think that situation really arose in the proceedings before me, and I propose to insert the words “by any person” for the reason I have indicated.
2 Two other points have been raised with me by Mr Singleton, of counsel for the first defendant. The first was whether the words “conclusion or opinion” after the word “finding” should continue to find a place in declarations 1 and 2. In my view, those words should continue to be there. A firm statement of conclusion or opinion to the requisite effect was in my view within the issue as it was debated between the parties and decided by me.
3 On the other hand, Mr Singleton has asked that the words “or may have”, relating to the existence of corrupt or other improper conduct, should be removed from both the declarations as proposed. In this case I agree with Mr Singleton’s submission. The debate before me took place in terms of firm expressions of conclusion or opinion. The debate turned both upon the proceedings being investigative proceedings and on the potentiality of harm, as I have said, to the rights or reputations of individuals. In my view, the manner in which the argument was conducted did not extend to the situation of an expression of a possibility or potentiality of, rather than an expression of firm conclusion as to, corrupt or other improper conduct. In my view, those words should be excised from the declarations as made.
4 I should say that Mr Lynch, on behalf of the plaintiff, has not objected to the removal of the words “or may have” and nobody has objected to the inclusion at my instance of the words “by any person” in either of the declarations. I make orders in accordance with the short minutes as altered initialled by me and placed with the papers.
Last Modified: 11/10/2004
0