Rock v Henderson; Rock v Henderson (No 2)

The proceedings before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales involved two appeals concerning decisions made by Olsson SC DCJ. The primary dispute centred on claims of malicious prosecution, trespass, and battery, as well as a challenge to the primary judge's delay in providing written reasons for judgment. The parties were Rock (appellant) and Henderson (respondent).

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether a significant delay in a primary judge providing written reasons for judgment constituted an error requiring a retrial, and if the tort of malicious prosecution was available in relation to the procurement of an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO). The court also considered whether a common law duty exists for District Court judges to provide reasons contemporaneously with judgment, and whether the tort of trespass could sustain an award of damages beyond nominal amounts, given the appellant's failure to establish consequential loss. Finally, the court addressed whether leave to appeal should be granted in relation to alleged instances of battery where damages were not assessed by the primary judge.

The Court of Appeal determined that the common law rule regarding the provision of reasons for judgment had evolved and that no duty compelled District Court judges to provide reasons contemporaneously with judgment, thus a retrial was not required due to the delay. Regarding malicious prosecution, the court held that the tort was not applicable to the procurement of an ADVO, as the complainant, not the respondent, was considered the prosecutor in this context. While trespass was established, the appellant failed to prove damage flowing from it, leading to an award of nominal damages only. Leave to appeal concerning the alleged batteries was refused, as any damages would likely be nominal and fall below the threshold for appeal.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the original orders and substituting judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $100 for trespass. Orders relating to suppression were also set aside. Leave to appeal was granted on specific grounds concerning battery, but the appeal on those grounds was dismissed, and leave was refused on all other grounds. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.