Legal Research
Cases
Williams v Pardoe

Williams v Pardoe

Case [2003] NSWLEC 363 23 December 2003

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION: Williams v Pardoe and Ors [2003] NSWLEC 363

PARTIES:
APPLICANT:
Williams
RESPONDENT:
Pardoe and Ors

FILE NUMBER(S): 40626 of 2003

CORAM: Bignold J

KEY ISSUES: Practice and Procedure :- Application for security for costs-impecunious litigant in person

LEGISLATION CITED: National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, ss 87, 90 and 176A

CASES CITED: Arnold v Queensland (1987) 73 ACR 607;
Lall v 53-55 Hall Street Pty Ltd (1978) 1 NSWLR 310;
Melville v Craig Nowlan and Associates Pty Ltd (2002) 54 NSWLR 82;
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72;
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589;
Williams v Pardoe and Ors (2003) NSWLEC 150;
Williams v The Director General of National Parks and Wildlife Service and Ors (2003) NSWLEC 121

DATES OF HEARING: 28/10/2003

DATE OF JUDGMENT:
12/23/2003

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT:
Mr Alan Oshlack (Agent)
SOLICITORS
N/A
FIRST RESPONDENT
Mr M Brennan, Solicitor
2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS:
Mr N Williams SC
FOURTH RESPONDENT
submitting appearance
SOLICITORS:
FIRST RESPONDENT
Blake Dawson Waldron
2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS
Blake Dawson Waldron
FOURTH RESPONDENT
National Parks & Wildlife Service

JUDGMENT:

IN THE LAND AND Matter No

. . 40626 of 2003

ENVIRONMENT COURT Coram

: Bignold J

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

23 December 2003

NEVILLE WILLIAMS

Applicant

COLIN PARDOE

First Respondent

BARRICK AUSTRALIA LIMITED

Second Respondent

BARRICK GOLD OF AUSTRALIA

Third Respondent

DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Fourth Respondent

JUDGMENT

A. INTRODUCTION

1. By Notice of Motion filed on 4 September 2003, the first to third Respondents seek an order that the Applicant provide security for costs of the first to third Respondents in the proceedings. The Motion also seeks the striking out or permanent stay of the claim made in paragraph 6 of the Amended class 4 application filed by the Applicant on 3 September 2003 (which was supported by Points of Claim).

2. The Applicant has resisted the relief claimed in the first to third Respondents’ Notice of Motion. He desires to proceed to a final hearing of his claims (his application for interlocutory injunction having been dismissed by the Court in June 2003—see Williams v Pardoe and Ors (2003) NSWLEC 150).

3. In the course of the hearing of the first to third Respondents’ Notice of Motion, Mr Oshlack who appeared for the Applicant as his authorised agent, informed the Court that the Applicant may wish to amend his claim to allege additional legal grievances against the first to third Respondents in the proceedings. An affidavit sworn by the Applicant was filed on 26 September 2003 alleges additional breaches of the conditions of the Permit. This disclosure led Senior Counsel for the first to third Respondents to suggest that as an alternative to the Court determining the present Notice of Motion on the basis of the case as it presently stands, the Court might consider granting leave to the Applicant to file a further amended class…

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 Williams v Pardoe

Details

AGLC: Williams v Pardoe [2003] NSWLEC 363
Case: [2003] NSWLEC 363
Decision Date: 12/23/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Williams v Pardoe is a case heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, wherein the Applicant, Neville Williams, sought to challenge the validity of a permit granted to the first to third Respondents concerning activities at Lake Cowal. The Respondents, represented by various legal entities, sought an order for security for costs, arguing that the litigation was an abuse of process given Williams' impecunious status and the repetitive nature of his claims. The case hinges on the interpretation of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and the legitimacy of the permit conditions.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Applicant, an impecunious litigant in person, should be required to provide security for costs against significantly wealthier corporate entities. This issue was compounded by the Applicant's history of litigating against the Respondents, the repetitive nature of his claims, and the potential public interest in the enforcement of permit conditions related to Aboriginal heritage.

Bignold J, in delivering the judgment, considered the principle that security for costs is a tool to prevent abuse of the judicial process, particularly by impecunious litigants. However, the Court found that Williams' claims had a strong public interest component due to the significance of the alleged breaches of the permit conditions concerning Aboriginal heritage. The Court also noted the delay in the Respondents' application for security for costs, which was not raised earlier in the litigation history despite knowledge of Williams' financial status. Moreover, the Court determined that the present claims were distinct from previous litigation and thus not barred by res judicata or issue estoppel.

Ultimately, the Court refused the application for security for costs, finding that such an order would stifle the litigation and deter Williams from pursuing legitimate claims regarding the alleged breaches of permit conditions. The Court emphasized the importance of adjudicating on the validity of the permit's implementation, particularly in the context of Aboriginal heritage protection. The Court also reserved the question of costs and allowed the parties to set a date for the final hearing.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the application for security for costs, allowing Williams to continue with his litigation against the Respondents concerning the alleged breaches of the permit conditions at Lake Cowal.

Orders