Stockhausen v Longley [2024] NSWDC 34

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Stockhausen v Longley [2024] NSWDC 34 Hearing dates: 19 February 2024 Date of orders: 20 February 2024 Decision date: 20 February 2024 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Acting Judge Levy SC Decision: See paragraph [25] for orders Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – self represented parties – unsuccessful application by plaintiff for summary judgment pursuant to UCPR r 13.1 – misguided alternative application by plaintiff for dismissal of his own proceedings for claimed want of due despatch on defendant's part pursuant to UCPR r 12.7 – plaintiff's applications determined to be untenable – arguable justiciable defence pleaded – parties met on Sugar Daddy / Sugar Baby dating website and entered into an agreement for sexual and related benefits – alternate dispute resolution suggested Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 26 Uniform Civil procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 12.7, r 13.1, r 13.4 Cases Cited: General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Mackael Ralf Stockhausen (Plaintiff) Emily Doreen Lightbody Longley (Defendant) Representation: Both parties: In person File Number(s): 2023/173385

JUDGMENT 1. These two contested interlocutory applications filed by the plaintiff on 13 November 2023 and 5 February 2024 seek summary judgment (UCPR r 13.1) or alternatively, and misguidedly, dismissal of his own proceedings for want of due despatch: UCPR r 12.7. The applications were heard in Newcastle on 19 February 2024.

Background 1. The parties acknowledge these proceedings are messy. The parties met on a Sugar Daddy / Sugar Baby dating website. 2. They subsequently entered into a personal relationship. The terms of that relationship were defined in part by the provisions of a so-called Sugar Daddy contract whereby the defendant agreed to provide the plaintiff with a diverse range of sexual benefits and other services on demand. These included but were not limited to whipping, spanking, caning, paddling, and other forms of discipline, as well as a range of sexual activity. 3. That relationship continued for a time but ultimately soured over allegations concerning the plaintiff's violent behaviour, and issues concerning property and money. 4. Those events led to the plaintiff being incarcerated for a term of imprisonment in respect of domestic violence. The defendant claims that in those events the plaintiff gave her his enduring power of attorney in seeking to rekindle their relationship. Accordingly, she claims she was entitled to deal with the plaintiff's assets. 5. The plaintiff commenced this litigation seeking to recover damages from the defendant in respect of his property and his funds.