Peter Frederick CLARK v TNR & Ors - [2008] NSWSC 828

CITATION: Peter Frederick CLARK v TNR & Ors [2008] NSWSC 828

HEARING DATE(S): 24 April 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 24 April 2008

DECISION: Notice of Motion Dismissed. Plaintiff to pay the Defendants' costs.

CATCHWORDS: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application to temporarily stay proceedings - Plaintiff's criminal proceedings yet to be finalised - inability to access documents - medical condition - lengthy delay in finalisation of proceedings - notice of motion dismissed

PARTIES: Peter Frederick CLARK (Plaintiff)
TNR (2nd Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20185/05

COUNSEL: P Clark (In Person) (Plaintiff)
TNR (In person) (1st & 2nd Defendants)
PM Sibtain (3rd -5th Defendants)

SOLICITORS: P Clark (Self represented)
TNR (Self represented)
I V Knight - Crown Solicitor (3rd-5th Defendants)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

SIMPSON J

Thursday 24 April 2008

20185/05 Peter Frederick CLARK v TNR & Ors
JUDGMENT

1 HER HONOUR: These proceedings were commenced by statement of claim filed on 14 June 2005 naming five defendants. The plaintiff, Mr Clark, is unrepresented and has prepared his own legal documents. In fact the proceedings have their origin as far back as 1998 when the plaintiff was charged with sexual offences against the first defendant of which he was initially convicted but acquitted on appeal. The plaintiff now seeks an order that further proceedings on the statement of claim be temporarily stayed. He puts his argument today on two bases: One, medical reasons, and two, that he is currently engaged in criminal proceedings which have not been finalised and to which he needs to devote his attention.

2 The order sought is opposed by TNR who appears for himself and is the second defendant and who also appears without objection from any other party for TR who is the first defendant and TNR’s son.

3 The application is also opposed by Ms Sibtain who appears for the State of New South Wales which is the third defendant and such of the fourth and fifth defendants (a police officer, and an employee of the NSW Attorney General’s Department) as continue to be parties to the proceedings. I put it that way because there is apparently some doubt about their current status as parties, which need not here be resolved.

4 The proceedings have a very long history, they being now almost 3 years old, but regrettably that history does not disclose anything in the nature of progress. I was given a chronology by Ms Sibtain to which I do not propose to refer in detail but which sets out what is an extraordinary history of applications on the part of the plaintiff for adjournment of the proceedings. To some extent that is understandable. On 12 December 2006 the plaintiff was convicted in the District Court on certain charges and subsequently sentenced to imprisonment for four years with a non-parole period of two years, the non-parole period of which will expire on 8 December this year. It may be assumed that his capacity…

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 Peter Frederick CLARK v TNR & Ors

Details

AGLC: Peter Frederick Clark v TNR [2008] NSWSC 828
Case: [2008] NSWSC 828
Decision Date: 24 April 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Peter Frederick Clark applied for a temporary stay of proceedings against TNR and others. The dispute arose from a series of legal actions involving Clark's access to documents that were central to his case. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Edelman. Clark argued that the inability to access certain documents due to a medical condition, combined with the lengthy delay in the finalisation of his criminal proceedings, necessitated a temporary stay of the current proceedings.

The court was tasked with determining whether the circumstances warranted a temporary stay of the proceedings in light of the plaintiff's pending criminal matters and the related document access issues. Specifically, the court had to weigh the potential prejudice to Clark against the interests of justice and the rights of the other parties involved.

Justice Edelman dismissed the application for a temporary stay. The court reasoned that the plaintiff's inability to access documents was not sufficiently compelling to warrant a stay, given the extensive time that had already elapsed and the lack of a clear connection between the document access issue and the outcome of the criminal proceedings. Additionally, the court noted that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the delay in finalising his criminal proceedings was unreasonably prolonged or that it was likely to cause significant prejudice to his ability to defend the current litigation. Consequently, the application was dismissed without costs.

Orders