Clark v State of New South Wales (No. 2) [2006] NSWSC 914

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Clark v State of New South Wales (No. 2) [2006] NSWSC 914

HEARING DATE(S) : 31 August 2006

JUDGMENT DATE : 31 August 2006

JUDGMENT OF : Johnson J at 1

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 08/31/2006

DECISION : See paragraphs 30 and 31 of judgment.

CATCHWORDS : COSTS - Supreme Court proceedings dismissed - self-executing costs order in District Court proceedings - operation of Part 42.20 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules in Supreme Court proceedings - unrepresented litigant - no duty to advise litigant how to conduct case

LEGISLATION CITED : Legal Profession Act 2004

Clark v State of New South Wales [2006] NSWSC 673 CASES CITED : Reisner v Bratt [2004] NSWCA 22 Malouf v Malouf [2006] NSWCA 83

PARTIES : Peter Frederick Clark (Plaintiff) State of New South Wales (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20233/02

COUNSEL : Mr P Clark (Plaintiff in person) Mr D Aquilina (Defendant)

SOLICITORS : IV Knight, Crown Solicitor (Defendant)

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION : N/A

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION : N/A

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

Johnson J

31 August 2006

20233/02 Peter Frederick Clark v State of New South Wales (No. 2)

JUDGMENT 1 JOHNSON J: On 30 June 2006, I gave judgment (Clark v State of New South Wales [2006] NSWSC 673) in which, pursuant to Part 13.4 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, I dismissed the Further Amended Statement of Claim and ordered that the Plaintiff pay the Defendant's costs of the application. The reasons for those orders are apparent from the judgment delivered on that day. 2 Following the delivery of judgment, contact was made with my Associate seeking that the matter be relisted because of what were said to be outstanding costs issues. It is true that paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Notice of Motion filed by the Defendant on 14 December 2004 sought orders that the Plaintiff pay the Defendant's costs of these proceedings, and that the Plaintiff pay the Defendant's costs of District Court proceedings 1122/98. Those proposed orders sought by the Defendant were repeated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Amended Notice of Motion filed by leave on 24 August 2005. 3 My judgment of 30 June 2006 did not address those particular and consequential matters which, it must be said, occupied very little time at the hearing of the matter. 4 The Plaintiff has filed an Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal from my judgment of 30 June 2006. The Summons for leave is returnable before the Court of Appeal on 18 September 2006. 5 In response to the Defendant's request to relist the matter for the purpose of these costs issues being considered, the Plaintiff submitted in writing that the issue should be deferred until after 18 September 2006. I declined to take that approach, and directed that the matter be listed before me today for hearing of the outstanding applications with respect to costs. 6 This morning, Mr Aquilina, counsel for the Defendant, informed the Court that the Defendant had formed the view recently that it was not, in fact, necessary to seek any further order from me with respect to the outstanding costs issues. There were two reasons for this.