Gillies v State of New South Wales (No.2)

Case [2024] NSWSC 1057


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Gillies v State of New South Wales (No.2) [2024] NSWSC 1057
Hearing dates: 21 August 2024
Date of orders: 21 August 2024
Decision date: 21 August 2024
Jurisdiction:Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:

(1) Pursuant to r 6.29 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, I order that his Honour Judge Ronald Solomon be removed as a party because, in light of his death on 17 June 2024, he has ceased to be a proper or necessary party.

(2)   I order that the title of the proceedings be recorded as Max Perry Gillies as plaintiff v State of New South Wales as first defendant and the Commonwealth of Australia as second defendant.

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE – Pleadings – Removal of the first named defendant by reason of the first named defendant’s death.

Legislation Cited:

Not Applicable

Cases Cited:

Not Applicable

Texts Cited:

Not Applicable

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: Max Perry Gillies (P)
State of New South Wales (D1)
Commonwealth of Australia (D2)
Representation:

Counsel:
Self Represented (P)
T Buterin (D1, D2)
M Sherman (D3)

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitors Office (D1)
Ashursts (D2)
File Number(s): 2021/321823
Publication restriction: Not Applicable

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

  1. The first defendant named on the Statement of Claim filed on 11 July 2023, is his Honour Judge Ronald Solomon. He is sued for his conduct as a Judge of the District Court of New South Wales in 2006. Judge Solomon died on 17 June 2024.

  2. The State of New South Wales (“the State”), which is presently the second defendant in the proceedings, accepts that if the plaintiff at any subsequent hearing of the merits of the substantive claims made in the Statement of Claim filed 11 July 2023 establishes the cause of action pleaded arising from the conduct of Judge Solomon in the course of his duties as a District Court Judge presiding over a criminal trial which took place in 2006, then the State accepts that it is vicariously liable for any damages which may be awarded to the plaintiff as a consequence of the conduct of Judge Solomon.

  3. In those circumstances, the State does not require the plaintiff to join either the Estate of the late Judge Solomon or else for a party to be nominated as representing the Estate of the late Judge Solomon.

  4. In light of the State's attitude, Mr Gillies does not oppose the removal of his Honour Judge Solomon as the named first defendant from the proceeding.

  5. Counsel for the State accepts that the removal of the first defendant by reason of his death does not of itself require any further amendment to the Statement of Claim.

  6. Of course, these matters were raised in the context of the Notices of Motion that were listed before me; namely, on the part of the plaintiff, for summary judgment for his claim; and, on the part of the State, that the Statement of Claim filed on 11 July 2023, ought be summarily dismissed or else the subject of an order for re‑pleading.

  7. The order I am about to make expresses no view about, and bears no relationship to, the determination of those respective Notices of Motion on their merits.

  1. Pursuant to r 6.29 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, I order that his Honour Judge Ronald Solomon be removed as a party because, in light of his death on 17 June 2024, he has ceased to be a proper or necessary party.

  2. I order that the title of the proceedings be recorded as Max Perry Gillies as plaintiff v State of New South Wales as first defendant and the Commonwealth of Australia as second defendant.

  3. I note that I do not require these changes to be the subject of a further amended pleading on the part of the plaintiff, at least prior to the determination of the issues listed before me for determination.

**********

Details
AGLC
Gillies v State of New South Wales (No.2) [2024] NSWSC 1057
Case
[2024] NSWSC 1057
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case were Gillies and the State of New South Wales. The nature of the dispute was a civil matter concerning the removal of a defendant from the proceedings due to their death. This case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The legal issues the court was required to decide involved the proper procedure for removing a deceased defendant from the proceedings and the implications of such a removal on the ongoing case.

The court examined whether the death of the first named defendant necessitated the removal of their name from the pleadings and, if so, the appropriate steps to take in such a situation. The court also considered the impact of the deceased defendant's removal on the remaining defendants and the overall progression of the case. In delivering the judgment, the court provided clarity on the procedural requirements and the legal consequences of a defendant's death during the litigation process.

The court ruled that the death of the first named defendant warranted the removal of their name from the pleadings. The court outlined the procedural steps necessary to effect this change, ensuring that the remaining defendants were not prejudiced by the deceased defendant's absence. The court also addressed the implications of the deceased defendant's death on the remaining defendants and the case's progression. Ultimately, the court's decision provided a framework for handling similar situations in the future, ensuring that the legal process remains fair and efficient.

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.