Legal Research
Cases
Stewart v Ronalds

Stewart v Ronalds

Case [2009] NSWSC 455 27 May 2009

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Stewart v Ronalds & Anor [2009] NSWSC 455

HEARING DATE(S): 26 May 2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
27 May 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Fullerton J

DECISION: 1. Pursuant to rule 28.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules I order that the following questions be heard and determined separately and before any other question in the proceedings:
(i) Are the plaintiff's claims in paragraphs 16 to 19 of the statement of claim justiciable?
(ii) If so, was the plaintiff owed a duty of natural justice, as alleged in paragraphs 16 and 19 of the statement of claim?
(iii) Was a duty of care at common law owed by the first defendant to the plaintiff as alleged in paragraph 12 of the statement of claim?
(iv) Do the plaintiff’s claims in paragraphs 13 and 16 of the statement of claim impermissibly seek to call into question the contents of the report of the first defendant in a manner inconsistent with parliamentary privilege and Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688?
2. Pursuant to rule 1.21 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules I order that the proceedings be removed into the Court of Appeal.
3. I order that the orders made by Registrar Bradford on 14 May 2009 in accordance with orders 1 to 4 of the plaintiff’s proposed short minutes of order of that day be vacated.
4. I order that the directions hearing in this matter listed in the Administrative Law List of the Common Law Division for 1 July 2009 be vacated.
5. I order that the costs of the motion be costs in the cause.
6. I grant leave for these orders to be entered forthwith.

CATCHWORDS: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Negligence - Questions for separate determination pursuant to rule 28.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules - Removal of matter to Court of Appeal pursuant to rule 1.21 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules

LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Constitution Act 1902
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules

CASES CITED: Baxter v Obacelo Pty Ltd [2000] NSWCA 69; 48 NSWLR 522
Cross v Barnes Towing and Salvage (Qld) Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 273; 65 NSWLR 331
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
Stewart v Ronalds & Ors (Supreme Court of New South Wales, Adams J, 9 April 2009, unreported)
Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59; 207 CLR 562

PARTIES: Anthony Paul Stewart (Plaintiff)
Chris Ronalds (1st Defendant)
State of NSW (2nd Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/30026

COUNSEL: J Kelly SC/N Furlan (Plaintiff)
B Walker SC/ J Kirk (Defendants)

SOLICITORS: Scully Legal (Plaintiff)
Crown Solicitor's Office (Defendants)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

FULLERTON J

27 MAY 2009

2009/30026 ANTHONY PAUL STEWART v CHRIS RONALDS & ANOR
JUDGMENT

By notice of motion filed on 14 May 2009 the defendants seek the following orders:

(a) that the Court states three questions for separate determination pursuant to rule 28.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (“the Rules”) and

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 Stewart v Ronalds

Details

AGLC: Stewart v Ronalds [2009] NSWSC 455
Case: [2009] NSWSC 455
Decision Date: 27 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Stewart, brought a negligence claim against Ronalds, alleging that Ronalds had negligently caused an accident that resulted in Stewart suffering personal injury. The matter was initially heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which was required to determine several constitutional issues that arose from the claim. The court was asked to consider whether the plaintiff's claim was justiciable under the Australian Constitution and whether the relevant statutory provisions were valid.

The primary legal issue was whether the court had the constitutional authority to hear and determine the plaintiff's claim. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the claim was within the subject matter jurisdiction of the court and whether the statutory provisions under which the claim was brought were valid. The court was also required to determine whether the claim was justiciable and whether the plaintiff had standing to bring the proceedings. Additionally, the court needed to address whether the matter involved any questions of law that were of sufficient importance to warrant separate determination.

The court found that the claim was justiciable and that the statutory provisions under which the claim was brought were valid. The court held that the claim was within the subject matter jurisdiction of the court and that the plaintiff had standing to bring the proceedings. The court also found that the matter involved questions of law of sufficient importance to warrant separate determination, and accordingly, it made orders pursuant to rule 28.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. The court further held that the matter should be removed to the Court of Appeal pursuant to rule 1.21 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, as the questions of law were of general public importance and required the consideration of the Court of Appeal. The court's reasoning was based on a detailed analysis of the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions, as well as a consideration of the principles of judicial review and the separation of powers.

Orders