Robert Fleet v RSPCA & Ors [2005] NSWSC 318

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Robert Fleet v RSPCA & Ors [2005] NSWSC 318

HEARING DATE(S) : 11 April 2005

JUDGMENT DATE : 11 April 2005

JURISDICTION : Common Law Division

JUDGMENT OF : Master Malpass at 1

DECISION : The plaintiff's notice of motion is dismissed; the plaintiff is to pay the costs of the notice of motion.

CATCHWORDS : Review - no question of principle.

LEGISLATION CITED : Supreme Court Rules 1970 Pt 61 r 3

Dr Robert Fleet (Plaintiff) Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals New South Wales (First Defendant) Louise Mary Parker (Second Defendant) PARTIES : Graeme Dymond (Third Defendant) State of New South Wales (Fourth Defendant) District Court of New South Wales (Fifth Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20215/03

In person (Plaintiff) COUNSEL : Mr D Kelly (First, Second and Third Defendants) Mr A Foel (Fourth and Fifth Defendants)

In person (Plaintiff) SOLICITORS : Moray & Agnew (First, Second and Third Defendants) Crown Solicitor (Fourth and Fifth Defendants)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 20215/03

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : Assistant Registrar Howe

- 2 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

Master Malpass

11 April 2005

20215 of 2003 Robert Fleet v RSPCA & Ors

JUDGMENT 1 Master: On 23 November 2004 the plaintiff filed a notice of motion. It contains a variety of claims for relief. 2 The plaintiff commenced these proceedings in 2003. The proceedings concern events which started on 5 March 1997. The original statement of claim was filed on 5 August 2003. So far there have been three attempts at amendments. 3 Registrar Howe heard applications brought by all defendants involving, inter alia, summary dismissal or the striking out of the plaintiff's process. On 26 October 2004 he delivered his decision on those applications. 4 He delivered written reasons for his decision. The orders that he made are as follows: (1) The proceedings against the fifth defendant are dismissed. (2) The plaintiff is to pay the fifth defendant's costs of the proceedings. (3) The balance of the amended statement of claim struck out. (4) The plaintiff is to pay the first, second, third and fourth defendants' costs of the proceedings. (5) The plaintiff is to pay the first, second, and fourth defendants' costs of the applications. (6) Leave is granted to the plaintiff to file and serve a Further Amended Statement of Claim after the first, second, third and fourth defendants' costs of the proceedings and these applications have been paid. 5 The plaintiff's present notice of motion was set down for hearing as a review of the decision of the Registrar pursuant to Pt 61 r 3 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970. The review took place on Monday 11 April 2005. 6 In conducting the review the court perused, inter alia, the reasons for the decision of the Registrar, the material he had before him (including the plaintiff's pleading) and the submissions made by the parties during the conduct of the review. 7 Following that review, I have come to the decision that no basis has been disclosed for disturbing the orders made by the Registrar. 8 In my view, his decision and orders should be confirmed. The plaintiff's notice of motion is dismissed. The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the notice of motion. 9 If the leave granted by the Registrar is to be exercised, it seems to me that it would be wise to do so with the benefit of legal advice and consideration should be given to the matter being transferred to the District Court. **********