KING-KNAZOVICKA v LUCAS [1989] NSWCA 126

KING-KNAZOVICKA v LUCAS SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

KIRBY P, MAHONEY and MEAGHER JJA 16 November 1988, 21 December 1989

[1989] NSWCA 126

NUISANCE — besetting — harassment of female person and her family — slanderous allegation that she is living in a bigamous relationship with the plaintiff's husband allegations denied and attributed to delusions of plaintiff trial judge (Bryson J) grants injunctions — plaintiff, unrepresented at trial allows evidence to be admitted without cross-examination — whether further evidence should be allowed on appeal — whether trial had miscarried — whether injunction too wide — whether defendants guilty of perjury held: (1) Fresh evidence should not be allowed on the appeal. Radnedge vy Government Insurance Office of New South Wales (1987) 9 NSWLR 235 applied; (2) The trial had not miscarried and the orders made were sustained by the evidence of the defendants; (3) Even if the appellant's allegations were true and not delusional, her conduct would sustain the orders made; (4) The injunction was properly granted and was not too wide. Vincent and Anor v Peacock [1973] 1 NSWLR 466 referred to; (5) The Court had no power to charge the defendants with perjury and there was no basis for it to refer the papers to prosecuting authorities to consider such a charge; (6) Appeal and motion accordingly dismissed.

Kirby P I agree with the orders proposed by Meagher JA and generally with his reasons.

Harrassment of the respondents

I attended closely to the submissions of the appellant. She was not legally represented either in this Court or before Bryson J. English is not her first language; nor is ours her first culture. For these reasons, I considered it important to examine whether the trial below miscarried because she did not really understand the consequences of adopting the procedures which she followed at first instance. However, even allowing for the lack of cross-examination of any witnesses, the evidence of the respondents (at least untested) was very powerful. It explained the conclusion which Bryson J reached. As Meagher JA points out, even if the appellant's beliefs were in fact true, they would have afforded her no justification in law for her campaign of harassment of the respondents.