Trajkovski v R K Findlay P/L - [2002] NSWSC 581

CITATION: Trajkovski v R K Findlay P/L & Anor [2002] NSWSC 581

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20143/2000

HEARING DATE(S): 6 June 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 1 July 2002

PARTIES :

Petar Trajkovski
(Plaintiff)
R K Findlay Pty Limited
(First Defendant)
Russell K Findlay
(Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Master Harrison

LOWER COURT
JURISDICTION : Supreme Court

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : 20143/2000

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Assistant Registrar Howe

COUNSEL :
Mr J B Conomy
(Plaintiff)
Mr G Ellis
(Defendants)

SOLICITORS:
Colin Daley Quinn
(Plaintiff)
Colin Biggers & Paisley
(Defendants)

CATCHWORDS: Appeal decision of registrar - access to police records in civil proceedings

LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Rules - Part 61 r 3
Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989 (Cth)
Customs Tariff Act 1987

CASES CITED: Beaufort Air-Sea Equipment Pty Ltd v Emhart Australia Pty Ltd (NSWSC unreported, Master Malpass, 18 December 1992)
Brijeski v Sunbeam Corporation Limited (NSWSC, unreported Master Greenwood, 29 January 1997)
Westpac Banking Corporation v Abemond Pty Ltd and westpac Banking Corporation v Cameron (NSWSC unreported, Santow J, 3 November 1994)
Modern Woodcraft Pty Ltd v Nett (NSWSC unreported, Young J, 7 March 1997)
Mariala Estates Limited v Athanasi & Ors [2001] NSWSC 1013
Abram v National Australia Bank Limited [2001] NSWSC 916
R v Saleam (1989) 16 NSWLR 14
The Commissioner for Railways v Small (1938) 38 SR 564
Attorney General for New South Wales v Stuart (1994) 34 NSWLR 667
Air Canada v Secretary for State for Trade [1983] 2 AC 394
Alister v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 404

DECISION: (1) The decision of Assistant Registrar Howe dated 11 March 2002 is affirmed; (2) Costs of the review are reserved.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

MASTER HARRISON

MONDAY, 1 JULY 2002
20143/2000 - PETAR TRAJKOVSKI v

R K FINDLAY PTY LIMITED & ANOR

JUDGMENT (Appeal decision of Registrar -

access to Police records
in civil proceedings)

1 MASTER: By notice of motion filed 5 April 2002 the first and second defendants seek an order pursuant to Part 61 r 3 of the Supreme Court Rules (SCR) that the decision of Assistant Registrar Howe dated 11 March 2002 be reviewed, and that access be granted to documents produced on subpoena by the Australian Federal Police and the NSW Police Service. The first defendant is R K Findlay Pty Limited and the second defendant is Russell K Findlay. The defendants practise as consulting engineers to the transport industry.

2 By proceedings filed 12 April 2002 the plaintiff sued the defendants in contract and negligence for damages arising out of an agreement dated 26 October 1994 under which the defendants were to obtain compliance plate approval to enable the plaintiff to import 1975 to 1989 Porsche motor vehicles before the law changed in such a manner as to make obtaining such an approval impossible. It is alleged that the work performed by the defendant was defective such that the approval was not secured for the plaintiff before the change…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Trajkovski v R K Findlay P/L and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] NSWSC 581
Decision Date: 1 July 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Trajkovski v R K Findlay P/L, the dispute centred on the ability of the defendant to access police records as part of their civil litigation. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the registrar's decision to deny access to these records was appealed. The defendant, R K Findlay P/L, sought the police records to support their case in the civil proceedings against Trajkovski. The core legal issues revolved around the extent to which a party in civil litigation can access police records and whether the registrar's decision to deny such access was justified under the relevant legislative provisions and judicial precedents.

The court had to consider whether the information contained in the police records was relevant and necessary to the issues being litigated. It was also required to determine if the potential prejudice to the privacy rights of individuals, whose information might be contained in those records, outweighed the defendant's need for the information. The court examined the balance between the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of police records and the necessity for the defendant to access them to adequately defend itself in the civil proceedings. Ultimately, the court found that the registrar's decision to deny access to the police records was correct, given the sensitivity of the information and the lack of a compelling need demonstrated by the defendant.

The reasoning of the court highlighted the importance of protecting privacy rights and the potential harm that could arise from indiscriminate access to police records. The court noted that the law did not provide a clear precedent for such access in civil matters and that the defendant had not sufficiently demonstrated a legitimate need that outweighed the privacy interests at stake. Consequently, the appeal against the registrar's decision was dismissed, and the defendant's application to access the police records was denied.

Orders