Legal Research
Cases
Westwood v Gulliver

Westwood v Gulliver

Case [2024] NSWSC 1323 22 October 2024

Summary Judgment

Standing

Self-Represented Litigant

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Westwood v Gulliver & Ors [2024] NSWSC 1323
Hearing dates: 23 July 2024
Date of orders: 22 October 2024
Decision date: 22 October 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Faulkner J
Decision:
(1) The bundle of 68 emails sent by the plaintiff to the Chambers of Faulkner J between 24 July and 9 October 2024 be adduced into evidence on the defendants’ summary dismissal applications and marked Exhibit 2.
(2) The bundle of 336 pages of unpaginated documents provided by the plaintiff to the Chambers of Faulkner J on 26 July 2024 be adduced into evidence on the defendants’ summary dismissal applications and marked Exhibit 3.
(3) Pursuant to UCPR 13.4, the proceedings be dismissed.
(4) The plaintiff pay each defendant’s costs of the proceedings.

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Summary dismissal – self-represented litigant – no reasonable cause of action.

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 56, 64, 98
Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (NSW) ss 12, 12A, 13, 20
Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) ss 59D, 135, 155
Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) s 505, 171D
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (NSW) rr 13.4, 14.28

Cases Cited:
Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552; [2000] HCA 41
Agius v State of New South Wales [2001] NSWCA 371
Alamdo Holdings Pty Ltd v Australian Window Furnishings (NSW) Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1073
Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Limited [1999] HCA 9; 198 CLR 334
Dickens v State of New South Wales (No.3) [2018] NSWSC 485
General Steels Industries v Commissioner of Railways NSW (1964) 112 CLR 125; [1964] HCA 69
Mills v Central Sydney Area Health Service [2002] NSWSC 728
McGuirk v University of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 1424
O’Brien v Bank of Western Australia Limited [2013] NSWCA 71
Qasim v PF 473 Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 248
Shaw v New South Wales [2012] NSWSC 102
Waterhouse v ICAC [2016] NSWCA 133
Waters v Commonwealth [2012] NSWSC 790
Wentworth v Rogers (No.5) (1986) 6 NSWLR 534

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Nicholas Westwood (Plaintiff)
Samantha Gulliver, Legal Services Commissioner (First Defendant)
Bernie Gross (Second Defendant)
NSW Bar Association (Third Defendant)
The Independent Commission Against Corruption (Fourth Defendant)
GH Healey & Co. (Fifth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
R Withana (First Defendant)
T Bateman (Second Defendant)
P A Maddigan (Third Defendant)
K Bones (Fourth Defendant)
Solicitors:
Office of the Legal Services Commissioner (First Defendant)
Clyde & Co (Second Defendant)
Hicksons Lawyers (Third Defendant)
Crown Solicitors Office (Fourth Defendant)

File Number(s): 2023/00441707

JUDGMENT

These proceedings commenced on 22 December 2023 when the plaintiff, Mr Westwood, filed a Statement of Claim in which he names five people or entities as defendants. Mr Westwood is self-represented. Despite a number of amendments, some filed and others not, the Statement of Claim is not in a form which permits the case fairly to be prepared for hearing by the parties, let alone adjudicated by the Court.
Each of the…

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 Westwood v Gulliver

Details

AGLC: Westwood v Gulliver [2024] NSWSC 1323
Case: [2024] NSWSC 1323
Decision Date: 22 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Westwood v Gulliver arose from an application for summary dismissal made by Gulliver against Westwood, who appeared self-represented. The nature of the dispute was centered around a claim Westwood had made, which Gulliver argued lacked reasonable prospects of success. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Westwood's claim had any reasonable prospects of success, given the absence of a valid cause of action. The court had to consider the merits of Westwood's claims and the procedural fairness in dealing with a self-represented litigant. The court had to balance the need for efficiency in the judicial process against the rights of a party choosing to represent themselves.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that Westwood's claim did not have reasonable prospects of success. The reasoning hinged on the lack of a valid cause of action in the claims presented. The court took into account that Westwood was self-represented and exercised a degree of leniency, but ultimately concluded that the claim was untenable. The court ordered the summary dismissal of Westwood's claim, finding that it was not in the interests of justice to allow the proceedings to continue.

Orders