Reznitsky v Quinn & Ors [2007] NSWSC 150

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Reznitsky v Quinn & Ors [2007] NSWSC 150

HEARING DATE(S) : 26 February 2007

JUDGMENT DATE : 6 March 2007

JURISDICTION : Common Law Division

JUDGMENT OF : Studdert J

DECISION : (1) I order that the claim against the tenth defendant in the fourth amended summons be struck out. (2) I order that the plaintiff pay the tenth defendant's costs of the notice of motion.

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, Pt 13 r 13.4 LEGISLATION CITED : Supreme Court Rules Pt 51B r 6 Crimes (Local Courts Appeal and Review) Act 2001, ss 18, 19, 52, 53

CASES CITED : General Steel Industries Inc. v Commissioner for Railways (1964) 112 CLR 125

Boris Reznitsky (Plaintiff) Margaret Quinn (1st Defendant) Kyle Williams (2nd Defendant) Jon Ward (3rd Defendant) Ian Priest (4th Defendant) PARTIES : Howard Fox (5th Defendant) Vanessa Robinson (6th Defendant) Colin Moar (7th Defendant) Jonathan Fitisemanu (8th Defendant) Jared Cowan (9th Defendant) The State of New South Wales (10th Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 12176/05

COUNSEL : In person (Plaintiff) C. Lonergan (6th, 10th Defendants)

SOLICITORS : Not applicable Crown Solicitor's Officer (6th, 10th Defendants)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

STUDDERT J

Tuesday 6 March 2007

12176/05 BORIS REZNITSKY v MARGARET QUINN & ORS

JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff, Boris Reznitsky, has filed a number of summonses, and most recently and relevantly, his fourth amended summons. In that summons he has named ten defendants. The tenth defendant is the State of New South Wales and that defendant alone has filed a notice of motion seeking an order that the fourth amended summons be struck out and an order for costs for that defendant and for the sixth defendant. I was informed on the hearing of the application that the only defendants who have been served with the fourth amended summons are the sixth and tenth defendants. 2 Before considering the merits of the tenth defendant's application, it is desirable to refer to the proceedings which prompted the filing of the fourth amended summons. 3 Criminal proceedings were brought against the plaintiff in the Downing Centre Local Court. He was there prosecuted, having been charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm on a person named Colin Moar. The first defendant, Magistrate Quinn, conducted the hearing in that court and found the charges to be proved. The events giving rise to the charge took place at St Vincent's Hospital on 23 February 2002. The hearing in the Local Court was a lengthy one, following which, on 21 January 2004, the magistrate proceeded to convict the plaintiff and placed him on a bond to be of good behaviour for a period of eighteen months. 4 The plaintiff appealed to the District Court, filing a notice of appeal on 5 February 2004. The appeal was dismissed by his Honour Judge Nield on 19 April 2005. In his judgment, Nield DCJ recorded that the plaintiff appeared in the District Court in relation to the appeal on sixteen occasions but on 18 April 2005 the plaintiff left the court after the judge had refused an adjournment application. The judge proceeded to dismiss the appeal on two grounds: