G4P8 v State of New South Wales

Case [2023] NSWSC 1533


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: G4P8 v State of New South Wales [2023] NSWSC 1533
Hearing dates: 08 December 2023
Date of orders: 08 December 2023
Decision date: 08 December 2023
Jurisdiction:Common Law
Before: Weinstein J
Decision:

See [9]

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE – commencement of proceedings – leave to commence pursuant to Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 – leave granted – orders for suppression of plaintiff’s identity made

Legislation Cited:

Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981

Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010

Cases Cited:

Potier v The Attorney Generalfor the State of New South Wales [2015] NSWCA 129

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: G4P8 (plaintiff)
State of New South Wales (defendant)
Representation: Solicitors:
B Williamson (plaintiff)
File Number(s): 2023/360698
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT – EX TEMPORE – DUTY LIST

  1. The plaintiff filed a notice of motion on 29 November 2023 seeking orders pursuant to s 4 of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981, and orders pursuant to the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010.

  2. A statement of claim was filed in this Court on 13 November 2023, but because the plaintiff is in custody having committed a serious indictable offence, he requires leave to continue with the proceedings pursuant to s 4 of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981.

  3. Section 5 of that Act provides that a Court shall not grant leave to a person to institute proceedings unless the Court is satisfied that the proceedings are not an abuse of process and that there is a prima facie ground for the proceedings. Thus the plaintiff has to satisfy me of two matters as Leeming JA said in Potier v The Attorney Generalfor the State of New South Wales [2015] NSWCA 129 at [57]:

"Commencement of civil proceedings in a Court without leave is in contravention of s 4. Power is conferred under ss 4 and 5 to lift the prohibition by the grant of leave. Leave may only be granted by the Court in which the proceedings are to be commenced. Section 5 constrains the power to grant leave in circumstances where the Court is satisfied of two things, that the proceedings are not an abuse of process and that there are prima facie grounds for them."

  1. Mr Williamson, who appears for the plaintiff in these proceedings and mentions the matter on behalf of Ms Whittle of Norton Rose Fulbright who appears for the defendant, read an affidavit of Ms Melinda Griffiths, affirmed on 29 November 2023.

  2. I observe that that affidavit satisfies me of the two matters set out in Potier, that is that the proceedings are not an abuse of process and that there are prima facie grounds for them.

  3. The defendant neither consents nor opposes the application for leave pursuant to the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981, and I therefore propose to grant that leave.

  4. As to the order pursuant to the Court Suppression and Non publication Act 2010, the plaintiff seeks that his identity be suppressed on the grounds set out in s 8(c) of that Act, i.e., that the order is required for the safety of the plaintiff. I do not propose to repeat in this judgment the evidence upon which Mr Williamson relies. I am also satisfied that the orders should be in place for the period nominated by the plaintiff and should apply across the country.

  5. I accept that that is made out and that, balanced against the primary objective of the administration of justice being open justice, it is appropriate to make the orders that are sought by the plaintiff in these proceedings.

  6. I make the following orders:

  1. Pursuant to s 4 of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981, the plaintiff is granted leave, nunc pro tunc, to commence and maintain proceedings against the State of New South Wales, as set out in the statement of claim which was filed on 13 November 2023.

  2. Pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010, the identity of the plaintiff is to be suppressed on the grounds that the order is required for the safety of the plaintiff. Pursuant to ss 10 and 11 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 the orders are to apply throughout the Commonwealth of Australia for the life of the plaintiff.

  3. I make the following further orders pursuant to the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010:

  1. That the plaintiff be known as G4P8.

  2. That the proceedings be known as G4P8 v State of New South Wales.

  3. The proceedings be described as G4P8 v State of New South Wales, and all proceedings and documents served or filed in these proceedings be referred to as G4P8 v State of New South Wales.

  4. The name of the proceedings be changed to G4P8 v State of New South Wales.

  5. The plaintiff is to file an amended statement of claim by 15 December 2023 complying with these orders.

  1. Costs be cost in the cause.

**********

Details
AGLC
G4P8 v State of New South Wales [2023] NSWSC 1533
Case
[2023] NSWSC 1533
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

G4P8, a former prisoner, sought to commence civil proceedings against the State of New South Wales, seeking damages for alleged negligence during his incarceration. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The legal issues before the court included whether the plaintiff had leave to commence the proceedings under the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981, and whether orders should be made for the suppression of the plaintiff's identity.

The court considered the requirements of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981, which mandates that a former prisoner must obtain leave to commence proceedings against the State. The court noted the plaintiff's history of litigation and the potential for vexatious litigation. The court also considered the public interest in ensuring that former prisoners could seek redress for legitimate grievances, while also balancing the need to protect the State from unnecessary and frivolous litigation. Ultimately, the court granted the plaintiff leave to commence the proceedings, but made orders for the suppression of the plaintiff's identity to protect the State from potential harassment and to maintain the integrity of the legal process.

The court's reasoning was based on a careful consideration of the relevant statutory provisions, the plaintiff's history of litigation, and the potential for vexatious litigation. The court recognised the importance of ensuring that former prisoners could seek redress for legitimate grievances, while also balancing the need to protect the State from unnecessary and frivolous litigation. The court's decision to make orders for the suppression of the plaintiff's identity was based on the need to protect the State from potential harassment and to maintain the integrity of the legal process.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff was granted leave to commence the proceedings, but that orders were made for the suppression of the plaintiff's identity. This meant that the plaintiff could proceed with the litigation, but that their identity would be concealed from the State and any other parties to the proceedings. This decision recognised the importance of protecting the State from potential harassment and vexatious litigation, while also ensuring that the plaintiff could seek redress for any legitimate grievances they may have.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.