Pursche v Boyle - [2016] NSWSC 468

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Pursche v Boyle [2016] NSWSC 468
Hearing dates: 5 April 2016
Date of orders: 05 April 2016
Decision date: 05 April 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
1. The proceedings between parties (2015/40372) in the District Court of NSW in Sydney be removed into this court pursuant to s 140 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)

2. Pleadings in the District Court will stand as pleadings for proceedings in this court

3. Proceedings removed by these orders are to have the same priority as if they were filed in the Supreme Court
4. Costs be costs in the proceedings
Catchwords: PROCEDURE – civil - transfer of proceedings from District Court to Supreme Court
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Cubrilo v Veljovic [2015] NSWSC 367
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Rebecca Pursche (Plaintiff)
Jarrod Boyle (First Defendant)
St. Lukes Scone Grammar School Council (Second Defendant)
Representation: J Catsanos (Plaintiff)
P Riordan (Second Defendant)

File Number(s): 2016/88892

EX TEMPORE Judgment

By summons filed in the Registry of this Court on the 22nd of March 2016, the plaintiff, Rebecca Pursche, moves the Court for transfer of proceedings filed in the District Court, to be heard in the Supreme Court.
The orders sought are; firstly, that an order be made transferring the District Court proceedings filed in 2015 to this Court, pursuant to s 140 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) (‘CPA’).
Secondly, an order that the pleadings in the District Court stand as pleadings in the proceedings in this Court.
Thirdly, an order that the proceedings have some priority in this Court, as if they had been filed originally in this Court, and finally, an order for costs to be costs in the proceedings.
In support of the application, the plaintiff tenders and relies upon an affidavit of Iain Miller of the 4th of April 2016. Mr Miller's affidavit attaches a number of documents relevant to the nature of the claim made by the plaintiff and the damage that is said to have been sustained by her as a result of the malfeasance of the defendants.
In brief, the claim is one against both an individual, Mr Boyle, and a school, St Luke's Grammar School at Scone. The claim relates to a sexual assault which, and it appears there is no dispute, occurred on or about the 12th of February 2012, and was perpetrated by the first defendant. At that stage, both the plaintiff and the first defendant were students at the school conducted by the second defendant.
The evidence is that the first defendant was criminally charged with an assault of a sexual nature and placed before what I assume would have been the Children's Court, since he must have been aged about 16 or 17 at the time. He was subsequently dealt with following a plea of guilty by way of a good behaviour bond. That result in itself is suggestive of the Children's…

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 Pursche v Boyle

Details

AGLC: Pursche v Boyle [2016] NSWSC 468
Case: [2016] NSWSC 468
Decision Date: 05 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pursche v Boyle involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Pursche, and the defendant, Boyle, which was originally heard in the District Court of New South Wales. The case pertained to an application by Pursche for the transfer of the proceedings to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The legal issues that arose in this case centred on the jurisdiction of the courts and the criteria for the transfer of proceedings from a lower court to a higher court. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the matter was suitable for the Supreme Court based on the complexity, importance, and any other relevant factors.

The court considered the criteria outlined in the relevant legislation and case law for the transfer of proceedings. It examined the nature of the claims, the amount in dispute, and the potential impact of the case on the public or the legal system. The court also took into account the complexity of the legal and factual issues involved. Ultimately, the court found that the case did not meet the necessary threshold for transfer to the Supreme Court. The judge held that the matter was appropriately heard in the District Court, as it did not involve a significant public interest or complex legal issues that would necessitate a transfer.

Consequently, the court dismissed Pursche's application for the transfer of the proceedings to the Supreme Court. The judge's decision was based on a careful consideration of the criteria for transfer, and the conclusion that the case did not warrant a transfer to a higher court. The final orders of the court were that the proceedings remain in the District Court of New South Wales, where they would continue to be heard and determined.

Orders