Potier v Arnott - [2010] NSWSC 144

CITATION: POTIER v ARNOTT & ORS [2010] NSWSC 144

HEARING DATE(S): 18 November 2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
9 March 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Hulme J at 1

DECISION: (i) I refuse Mr Potier leave to bring against Mr David Arnott, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General proceedings upon the basis of the matters referred to in the Summons, Statement of Claim and Statement of Issues marked as filed in the Common Law Division of this Court and given number 16303/2008
(ii)I refuse Mr Potier leave to bring against McGowan Lawyers (or the members of that firm) and Mr T Healey proceedings upon the basis of the matters referred to in the Summons, Statement of Claim and Statement of Issues marked as filed in the Common Law Division of this Court and given number 16305/2008.
(iii) I refuse Mr Potier leave to bring against the Commissioner, Department of Corrective Services, proceedings upon the basis of the matters referred to in the Summons, Statement of Claim and Statement of Issues marked as filed in the Common Law Division of this Court and given number 16307/2008.
(iv) I refuse Mr Potier leave to bring against the Legal Aid Commission proceedings upon the basis of the matters referred to in the Summons, Statement of Claim and Statement of Issues marked as filed in the Common Law Division of this Court and given number 16296/2008.

PARTIES: Malcolm Potier (Plaintiff)
David Arnott SC (First Defendant)
McGowan Lawyers (2nd Defendant)
Department of Corrective Services (3rd Defendant)
Legal Aid Commission of NSW (4th Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 16303/2008; 16305/2008; 163007/2008; 16296/2008

COUNSEL:
Mr M Potier (in person)
Mr S Finnane (2 & 3 Defendants)
Mr J Gaudan (4 Defendant)

SOLICITORS: IV Knight Crown Solicitor
McGowan Lawyers

- 10 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

16303/2008
16305/2008
16307/2008
16296/2008

RS HULME J

Tuesday 9 March 2010

MALCOLM HUNTLEY POTIER -v- DAVID ARNOTT S.C.

MALCOLM HUNTLEY POTIER -v- MCGOWAN LAWYERS

MALCOLM HUNTLEY POTIER -v- THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIVE SERVICES, NSW

MALCOLM HUNTLEY POTIER -v- LEGAL AID COMMISSION OF NSW

JUDGMENT

1 RS HULME J: These are a further set of reasons arising out of an attempt by Malcom Potier to commence four sets of proceedings in this Court. Mr Potier is presently serving terms of imprisonment and accordingly he suffers the restrictions imposed by the provisions of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981.

2 On 6 August 2009 I published Reasons in response to a request from Mr Potier that I ask the Registry to request pro bono assistance for him. In the course of those Reasons, I detailed at length the claims which Mr Potier sought to make against the Defendants in the proceedings and it is unnecessary for me to repeat that information here. These Reasons should be regarded as incorporating what I earlier said.

3 I should also record that, in support of his applications, Mr Potier has forwarded voluminous documentation including “affidavits”, submissions and correspondence to the…

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 Potier v Arnott

Details

AGLC: Potier v Arnott [2010] NSWSC 144
Case: [2010] NSWSC 144
Decision Date: 9 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Malcolm Potier, an incarcerated individual, sought to bring four separate sets of proceedings against several defendants, including David Arnott SC, McGowan Lawyers, the Commissioner of the Department of Corrective Services, and the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales. The plaintiff argued that the defendants' actions, or lack thereof, led to his conviction and subsequent imprisonment. The defendants contested the claims, asserting various legal defences, including immunity and the absence of a prima facie case.

The court was required to decide whether the plaintiff had a valid basis for his claims against the defendants. The court needed to assess the applicability of legal immunities, the sufficiency of the plaintiff's evidence, and whether the claims amounted to an abuse of process. Hulme J held that the claims against the defendants were without merit, as they were either barred by legal immunity or did not meet the threshold for a prima facie case. The court found that the plaintiff's claims against the Legal Aid Commission were precluded by the good faith immunity provided in the Legal Aid Commission Act 1979. The claims against the prosecutor, the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Attorney-General were dismissed due to the immunity granted to advocates under the High Court's decision in D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid. The claims against McGowan Lawyers were similarly dismissed due to the same immunity. Lastly, the court found that the claim against the Commissioner of Corrective Services was an abuse of process, as the administration and management of prisoners are matters for the Commissioner and those under him, not the courts.

The court ultimately decided to refuse the plaintiff leave to bring proceedings against all the defendants. The reasoning behind this decision was grounded in the applicable legal immunities, the lack of a prima facie case, and the abuse of process doctrine. The court emphasized that the plaintiff's complaints had already been considered by higher courts and that any further claims would require clear identification of the matters relied upon and evidence extending beyond mere assertions.

Orders