Stockhausen v Longley

[2024] NSWDC 34

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Stockhausen v Longley [2024] NSWDC 34

Hearing dates:

19 February 2024

Date of orders:

20 February 2024

Decision date:

20 February 2024

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Before:

Acting Judge Levy SC

Decision:

See paragraph [25] for orders

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE – self represented parties – unsuccessful application by plaintiff for summary judgment pursuant to UCPR r 13.1 – misguided alternative application by plaintiff for dismissal of his own proceedings for claimed want of due despatch on defendant’s part pursuant to UCPR r 12.7 – plaintiff’s applications determined to be untenable – arguable justiciable defence pleaded – parties met on Sugar Daddy / Sugar Baby dating website and entered into an agreement for sexual and related benefits – alternate dispute resolution suggested

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 26

Uniform Civil procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 12.7, r 13.1, r 13.4

Cases Cited:

General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125

Category:

Procedural rulings

Parties:

Mackael Ralf Stockhausen (Plaintiff)
Emily Doreen Lightbody Longley (Defendant)

Representation:

Both parties: In person

File Number(s):

2023/173385

JUDGMENT

1. These two contested interlocutory applications filed by the plaintiff on 13 November 2023 and 5 February 2024 seek summary judgment (UCPR r 13.1) or alternatively, and misguidedly, dismissal of his own proceedings for want of due despatch: UCPR r 12.7. The applications were heard in Newcastle on 19 February 2024.

Background

2. The parties acknowledge these proceedings are messy. The parties met on a Sugar Daddy / Sugar Baby dating website.

3. They subsequently entered into a personal relationship. The terms of that relationship were defined in part by the provisions of a so-called Sugar Daddy contract whereby the defendant agreed to provide the plaintiff with a diverse range of sexual benefits and other services on demand. These included but were not limited to whipping, spanking, caning, paddling, and other forms of discipline, as well as a range of sexual activity.

4. That relationship continued for a time but ultimately soured over allegations concerning the plaintiff’s violent behaviour, and issues concerning property and money.

5. Those events led to the plaintiff being incarcerated for a term of imprisonment in respect of domestic violence. The defendant claims that in those events the plaintiff gave her his enduring power of attorney in seeking to rekindle their relationship. Accordingly, she claims she was entitled to deal with the plaintiff’s assets.

6. The plaintiff commenced this litigation seeking to recover damages from the defendant in respect of his property and his funds.

Pleadings

7. The pleadings lack finesse because the parties are self-represented.

Plaintiff’s claim

8. Beneficially construed, the plaintiff’s statement of claim filed on 13 April 2023 comprises some 18 paragraphs to make a claim in detinue, or alternatively, conversion in respect of personal property. It also makes a claim for the reimbursement of the plaintiff’s funds allegedly misappropriated from his bank accounts. The plaintiff claims the defendant is indebted to him in the amount of $119,000.

Defences

9. The defence filed by the defendant on 7 August 2023 comprises some 22 paragraphs. It recites the contractual history of the relationship between the parties. It also recites the instance of domestic violence which led to the plaintiff’s imprisonment following ADVO breaches. It identifies a consequential financial agreement, monetary inducements, and monetary compensation payments the plaintiff made to the defendant in respect of his prior abusive behaviour towards her. That defence concludes with a statement of rejection of the plaintiff’s claims and asserts the plaintiff is indebted to the defendant in the amount of $76,000. No cross-claim has been filed.

10. On the morning of the hearing, without leave, the defendant filed a further defence in the Registry. That defence was in more extensive terms and comprised some 55 paragraphs, some of which were expressed in unclear and confusing terms. That document was provided to the plaintiff in the course of the hearing. Pragmatically, the plaintiff waived the irregularity of that course. As the plaintiff did not have an adequate opportunity to consider the matters raised by that defence, the plaintiff’s application was not considered as being directed to that document.

Evidence

11. The plaintiff relied upon an affidavit he affirmed on 9 November 2023, and a further affidavit he affirmed on 29 January 2024. Both affidavits included extensive annexures. The defendant did not file affidavit evidence but there were many annexures to her defences, in addition to the annexures to the plaintiff’s affidavit. Those materials were considered in light of the self-representation of the parties.

Consideration

12. In my view, the plaintiff’s ability to pursue the orders he seeks is problematic in light of a text message he had sent to the defendant in the course of their dispute, where, at a point when he was seeking to re-establish his relationship with her, he said:

“… I don’t care if you take everything in a divorce (sic). As far as I’m concerned it’s your entitlement”.

13. Also problematic to the plaintiff’s quest for the relief he seeks is the content of an unexecuted and unsigned Deed of Release which recited the negotiations between the parties on the possible terms of a foreshadowed rekindled relationship that was proposed following the plaintiff’s release from prison. The proposed Deed was acknowledged by the plaintiff on 10 January 2021, in a text message to the defendant as “prenuptial … which signs [his] rights away”.

14. Those matters would need to be considered and construed at a final hearing.

15. Although the plaintiff’s affidavit affirmed on 9 November 2023 asserts at paragraph 7 that the defendant’s defence “contains scandalous, vexatious, offensive and frivolous content”, on a fair reading of the document in light of the evidence, that assertion is inapt and unsustainable.

16. That same paragraph 7 of the plaintiff’s affidavit asserts that the defendant has failed to reply to requests for further and better particulars of her defence filed on 7 August 2023. The plaintiff’s request for particulars was not in evidence.

17. When that fact was pointed out to the plaintiff, and he was invited to provide a copy of the request for particulars he replied he was not able to produce a physical copy and, in any event, the letter was in terms that were expressed to be without prejudice. He did not seek to waive that stipulated term although that option was identified to him.

18. Whilst the defendant ‘s defence was prima facie filed late, on 7 August 2023, it has not been demonstrated that this was as a result of a course of conduct that was intended to delay or frustrate the due despatch of the proceedings as claimed by the plaintiff: UCPR r 12.7(2).

19. In this case the defendant’s pleaded defence, plainly albeit inelegantly, raises justiciable issues based on documents and relevant representations. Accordingly, entry of summary judgment on the asserted ground of an absence of a demonstrable defence must fail in whole: UCPR r 13.1(1)(b); General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125.

20. Whilst the pleadings could do with some improvement by the provision of legal assistance to achieve greater clarity, it cannot be reasonably said that the defence which the plaintiff seeks to impugn is relevantly frivolous, vexatious, lacks reasonable cause, or amounts to an abuse of process: UCPR r 13.4.

21. Finally, I observe that in part the relief sought by the plaintiff for the proceedings to be dismissed is confusingly misguided, and would if granted, operate against his interests. Presumably, he has mistakenly adopted an expression of legalese without an understanding of the consequences of doing so. In that regard, he would be benefitted by focussed legal assistance.

22. In the course of submissions, and having regard to the content of some of the documents annexed to affidavits, it became apparent that the parties were once in an intense and affectionate relationship.

23. It is also evident that at this point the parties have come to the realisation that legal proceedings of this kind are a blunt means by which to seek to sort out the detritus of their failed personal relationship.

24. The attention of the parties was drawn to the benefits and advantages of alternative dispute resolution as a potentially worthwhile means by which to resolve their residual conflicts. This will be taken up in case management orders after hearing further from the parties on that question: s 26 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).

Orders

25. I make the following orders:

1. The plaintiff’s notices of motion filed on 13 November 2023 and 5 February 2024 are dismissed;

2. The plaintiff is to pay such costs as the defendant is able to legally justify given her self-representation.

3. I will hear the parties as to appropriate case management orders.

**********

Decision last updated: 20 February 2024