Williams v Nielssen - [2019] NSWSC 1216

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Williams v Nielssen & Ors [2019] NSWSC 1216
Hearing dates: 13 September 2019
Date of orders: 13 September 2019
Decision date: 13 September 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:
(A)   The plaintiff’s application for a restraining order to be made today against the NSW Bar Association is refused.

(B)   Procedural Orders:

(1)   The plaintiff is to provide a copy of the draft statement of claim to any proposed defendant by 16 September 2019.
(2)   Any defendant who wishes to object to the statement of claim being filed is to notify the plaintiff by 19 September 2019.
(3) Any defendants referred to in order 2 are to file and serve any evidence and written submissions regarding whether leave should not be granted for the plaintiff to file a statement of claim pursuant to rule 7.14 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) by 23 September 2019.
(4)   The plaintiff is to file and serve any evidence and any written submissions regarding the relief question he wishes to rely upon by 27 September 2019.
(5)   The matter is listed before the Registrar on Wednesday 2 October 2019 for referral to the duty judge regarding the leave question and for further timetabling orders.
(6)   I reserve the question of costs.
Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – case management orders made
Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW), s 77, 100
Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 7.14
Cases Cited: Wende & Ors v Horwath (NSW) Pty Limited (2014) 86 NSWLR 674; [2014] NSWCA 170
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Jason Williams (Plaintiff)
Dr Olav Nielssen (First Defendant)
New South Wales Bar Association (Fifth Defendant)
South Eastern Sydney Local Health District (Sixth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Williams (Self-represented)
G M Gregg (First Defendant)
P Griffin SC (Fifth Defendant)
J Taylor (Sixth Defendant)
Solicitors:
Meridian Lawyers (First Defendant)
Hicksons Lawyers (Fifth Defendant)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Sixth Defendant)

File Number(s): 2019/272742
Publication restriction: Nil

EX TEMPORE Judgment

Before me today as duty judge and listed by me today for directions in my role as a duty judge this week, are proceedings commenced by Mr Williams seeking various interim orders and substantive relief.
The relief sought arises out of some mental health issues that are said to have been suffered by Mr Williams that led to a certain course of action, including, for a period, his containment under the Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW).
Mr Williams is a practising member of the New South Wales Bar and has, in addition to the initiating process seeking habeas corpus, also sought relief in terms of restoration of his practising certificate which had been suspended.
Various developments occurred including, I am informed by Mr Williams, his release on Wednesday this week which meant that he no longer needed to press for the habeas corpus relief.
He is, however, here today having made oral and written submissions pressing for:

“a restraining order against 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Williams v Nielssen 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: [2019] NSWSC 1216
Decision Date: 13 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Williams v Nielssen involved a dispute between the two parties over a contractual matter. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Williams, alleged that the defendant, Nielssen, had breached a contract by failing to pay for services rendered. The defendant, Nielssen, denied the allegations and counterclaimed for damages for the plaintiff's alleged breach of contract.

The legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff had established a breach of contract by the defendant and, if so, what damages were owed by the parties to each other. The court was also required to determine whether the case management orders made by the court at the pre-trial stage were appropriate.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the plaintiff had not established a breach of contract by the defendant. The court held that the evidence did not support the plaintiff's case and that the defendant had met his burden of proof in relation to the counterclaim. The court also found that the case management orders made by the court at the pre-trial stage were appropriate and did not prejudice the defendant's right to a fair trial. The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the action.

Orders