Gould v Choo & Anor [2002] NSWSC 183

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Gould v Choo & Anor [2002] NSWSC 183 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20986/01 HEARING DATE(S) : Monday 18 February 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 18 February 2002

PARTIES : Stephen George Gould v Florence Choo and Lana Chau JUDGMENT OF : Michael Grove J at 1

COUNSEL : SOLICITORS : In person (Plaintiff) S. Nash (Defendant) CATCHWORDS : (1) ADJOURNMENT - SUFFICIENCY OF GROUND - REFUSED - (2) PLEADING AND PARTICULARS - FAILURE TO DISCLOSE REASONABLE CAUSE OF ACTION - EXTENT OF RELIEF LEGISLATION CITED : Bankruptcy Act DECISION : STATEMENT OF CLAIM STRUCK OUT; FURTHER PROCEEDINGS STAYED

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

MICHAEL GROVE J

Monday 18 February 2002

20968/01 STEPHEN GEORGE GOULD v FLORENCE CHOO and LANA CHAU

JUDGMENT – On application for adjournment

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application by the plaintiff, Stephen George Gould, for adjournment of the hearing of a notice of motion on behalf of the two defendants seeking that a statement of claim filed by him be struck out. That statement of claim states that it seeks damages for management negligence, damage to reputation and loss of income. The proceedings were commenced by Statement of Claim filed on 4 December last. 2 The motion which is before the Court for hearing was filed on 18 December. The matter was before a Registrar on 7 February and listed for hearing today. 3 The basis of the adjournment application is that Mr Gould, who appears for himself, wishes to draw my attention to what he claimed is the authority of some decision in the District Court in litigation which he described as Gould v Inspector Roberts. He tells me that this is a case that was heard in 1994. His computer research shows that District Court judgments are not readily available, although he did not contradict my enquiries as to whether he was the "Gould" of this case of Gould v Inspector Roberts. I gather from other things he said that he is, in fact, the Mr Gould of that litigation. 4 He has referred to a wish to search his own voluminous records of litigation in order to find this case. He does not, at this stage, recall the name of the Judge. He said it was a source of authority for the existence of a tort which he has named management negligence. 5 For my part, I do not think that the word "management" is of great importance. If the Statement of Claim showed that there was a cause of action in negligence, be it management or some other form of failure to take reasonable care and then Mr Gould would be, if I might so state it, on sound ground. 6 It does not seem to me that the document presently before the Court would be advanced by a search for this somewhat ephemeral authority which, in any event, would not be binding upon the Court. 7 In the circumstances, the application for adjournment is refused.