Stocks v Johns - [2019] VSC 584

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

PERSONAL INJURIES LIST

S CI 2018 00516

ROBERT STOCKS	Plaintiff
v
SAMANTHA JOHNS	Defendant

---

JUDICIAL REGISTRAR	Clayton JR
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 July 2019
DATE OF RULING:	28 August 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Stocks v Johns
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 584

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Stay of proceedings – Where defendant appealed criminal conviction – Where plaintiff commenced proceedings alleging negligence by defendant – Whether negligence proceeding should be stayed pending finalisation of criminal proceedings – Whether refusal to stay negligence proceeding creates risk of prejudice in criminal proceedings – Whether in the interests of justice to stay the negligence proceeding.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr P Czarnota	Henry Carus & Associates
For the Defendant	Mr D Wallis	DLA Piper Australia

JUDICIAL REGISTRAR:

The defendant, Ms Johns seeks a stay of these proceedings, pending the outcome of her criminal appeal. The plaintiff, Mr Stocks, opposes the application.

For the reasons outlined below the application for a stay is granted.

Background

In 2014 Mr Stocks and Ms Johns were in a motor vehicle accident in which their vehicles collided (‘the collision’). Mr Stocks suffered significant injuries, including a head injury, a fracture to his cervical spine, cognitive impairment and bilateral shoulder injuries. He has been unable to return to his former occupation as a truck driver and has not worked since the collision.

As a result of the collision, Ms Johns was charged with intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence, and recklessly causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence. She pleaded not guilty and exercised her right to silence. She did not give evidence in her own defence. She was convicted by a jury in the County Court of Victoria of recklessly causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence and on 8 February 2019 was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment.

She has now appealed her conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal and is awaiting determination of that appeal. Other than an admission that her vehicle and Mr Stocks’ vehicle were in a collision, she has never made any admissions or statement about the circumstances of the collision, and in particular has not admitted that she was driving on the wrong side of the road at the time of the collision or was exceeding the speed limit.

In 2018 Mr Stocks issued proceedings against Ms Johns in this Court for damages. He alleges that his injuries were caused by the negligence of Ms Johns in the driving, management and/or control of her vehicle. He alleges that Ms Johns travelled at excessive speed, drove her vehicle on the wrong side of the road, deliberately attempted to collide with his vehicle, attempted to force his vehicle off the road, drove in a reckless manner, drove in a dangerous manner and failed to comply with the ‘Road Traffic Act 1986 (Vic)’(sic)…

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 Stocks v Johns

Details

AGLC: Stocks v Johns [2019] VSC 584
Case: [2019] VSC 584
Decision Date: 28 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stocks v Johns involved a defendant who had appealed against a criminal conviction and a plaintiff who commenced proceedings alleging negligence by the same defendant. The plaintiff sought damages for injuries allegedly caused by the defendant’s negligent conduct. The court had to determine whether the negligence proceeding should be stayed pending the finalisation of the criminal proceedings and whether refusing to stay the negligence proceeding would create a risk of prejudice in the criminal proceedings. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether it was in the interests of justice to stay the negligence proceeding.

The court examined whether the refusal to stay the negligence proceeding would prejudice the criminal appeal by, for example, influencing the defendant’s conduct in the appeal or affecting the fairness of the criminal trial. The court also considered whether the negligence proceeding was an abuse of process or whether it was in the interests of justice to stay the proceeding to avoid the risk of inconsistent findings or to expedite the resolution of the proceedings. The court balanced the need for the fair administration of justice in both the criminal and civil proceedings against the potential prejudice to the defendant if the negligence proceeding proceeded concurrently.

In determining that the negligence proceeding should not be stayed, the court found that the refusal to stay did not create a significant risk of prejudice in the criminal proceedings. The court held that the civil and criminal proceedings were distinct and could be managed in a way that avoided any potential prejudice. The court also considered the interests of justice and determined that staying the negligence proceeding was not necessary to ensure a fair trial in the criminal appeal or to avoid inconsistent findings. The court concluded that it was in the interests of justice for the negligence proceeding to continue, allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to pursue their claim for damages.

Orders