Safi v State of New South Wales

Case [2022] NSWSC 246


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Safi v State of New South Wales [2022] NSWSC 246
Hearing dates: 10 March 2022
Date of orders: 10 March 2022
Decision date: 10 March 2022
Jurisdiction:Common Law
Before: Ierace J
Decision:

1. Leave granted to the plaintiff to institute proceedings against the defendant nunc pro tunc pursuant to ss 4 and 5 of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW);

2. Each party to pay their own costs.

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE – commencement of proceedings – leave to commence action – Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW) – leave sought subsequent to commencement of proceedings

Legislation Cited:

Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW), ss 4, 5

Cases Cited:

Thurston v State of New South Wales [2021] NSWSC 226

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Hanna Safi (Plaintiff)
State of New South Wales (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
T Meakes (Plaintiff)
Mr S Roberts (Sol) (Defendant)

Solicitors:
Beston McManis Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Makinson d’Apice Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2021/327225

Judgment

  1. Hanna Safi has commenced proceedings in this Court by way of a statement of claim filed on 17 November 2021 seeking damages for injuries sustained when he was allegedly subject to sexual abuse perpetrated by a teacher when he was a student at Belmore North Public School.

  2. At the time of the institution of proceedings Mr Safi was in custody. Accordingly, pursuant to s 4 of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW) (“the Act”), he is required to have leave of the Court before such proceedings are instituted.

  3. Mr Safi brings the application seeking leave as if it had been sought prior to the filing of his statement of claim. It is established that leave can be granted as if that had occurred at the time that the proceedings were instituted, nunc pro tunc. I thank Mr Roberts for his assistance in relation to that aspect. See also Hamill J’s observations in Thurston v State of New South Wales [2021] NSWSC 226 at [3].

  4. Section 5 of the Act provides:

5   Grant of leave

A court shall not, under section 4, grant leave to a person to institute proceedings unless the court is satisfied that the proceedings are not an abuse of process and that there is prima facie ground for the proceedings.”

  1. The allegations of sexual abuse and threats by the plaintiff’s teacher that are particularised in the statement of claim and the nature of the duty that is identified as having been breached do not give rise to a concern that there are not prima facie grounds for the proceedings or that they are an abuse of process. I note that the State of New South Wales does not contest that the orders should be made.

Orders

  1. Accordingly, I make the following orders:

  1. Leave granted to the plaintiff to institute proceedings against the defendant nunc pro tunc pursuant to ss 4 and 5 of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW);

  2. Each party to pay their own costs.

**********

Details
AGLC
Safi v State of New South Wales [2022] NSWSC 246
Case
[2022] NSWSC 246
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Safi v State of New South Wales was before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Safi, sought to commence civil proceedings against the State of New South Wales, alleging damages arising from injuries sustained during an altercation with police officers. The defendant, the State of New South Wales, contested the plaintiff's right to commence proceedings due to the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW), which generally restricts prisoners from instituting civil actions without leave of the court. The central issue before the court was whether Safi's application for leave to commence action could be considered despite the fact that the proceedings had already been initiated.

The court was required to determine whether the statutory provisions under the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW) precluded Safi from obtaining leave to commence the action after the proceedings had already begun. This required a careful interpretation of the statutory language and an understanding of the legislative intent behind the Act. The court needed to balance Safi's right to seek redress for his injuries with the statutory restrictions placed on prisoners initiating civil actions.

The Supreme Court held that the statutory provisions of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW) do not absolutely preclude an application for leave to commence action after the proceedings have been initiated, provided the application is made promptly and there are reasonable grounds for the delay. The court found that the plaintiff had acted with due diligence and had presented a plausible case warranting further consideration. Consequently, the court granted Safi leave to commence the action against the State of New South Wales, permitting the case to proceed on its merits.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.