Adamson v Commissioner of Police for New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 858

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Adamson v Commissioner of Police for New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 858

HEARING DATE(S) : 24 August 2009

JUDGMENT DATE : 1 September 2009

JUDGMENT OF : James J

DECISION : 1. Application dismissed 2. Applicant pay respondents' costs of the application

CATCHWORDS : Transfer of proceedings from District Court

LEGISLATION CITED : Civil Procedure Act Search Warrants Act 1985

Christopher Michael Adamson - Plaintiff Commissioner of Police for New South Wales - First Defendant PARTIES : State of New South Wales - Second Defendant Detective Senior Constable Anthony Elkins - Third Defendant Registrar M P Degney - Fourth Defendant Director of Public Prosecutions - Fifth Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 15734/06

In person - Plaintiff COUNSEL : M Hutchings - Defendants N Carney - Defendant in District Court proceedings

SOLICITORS : In person - Plaintiff IV Knight, Crown Solicitor - Defendants

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

JAMES J

TUESDAY 1 SEPTEMBER 2009

15734/06 CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL ADAMSON v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & 4 ORS

JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application by Mr Christopher Michael Adamson, the plaintiff in this Court in proceedings no. 15734/06 ("the Supreme Court proceedings"), that proceedings in the Newcastle District Court no. 394/07 ("the District Court proceedings"), in which Mr Adamson is also the plaintiff, be transferred to this Court and heard concurrently with the Supreme Court proceedings. 2 The application is made pursuant to s 140(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which provides, so far as is relevant, that the Supreme Court may on an application by a party to proceedings in the District Court order that the District Court proceedings be transferred to the Supreme Court, and Pt 28 r 28.5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules which provides that, if several proceedings are pending in a court and it appears to the court that any of the matters set out in pars (a), (b) or (c) is satisfied, the court may order that those proceedings be tried at the same time. 3 The application is opposed by Mr Kenneth John Ede, who is the only defendant in the District Court proceedings, and by all the defendants in the Supreme Court proceedings, who are the Commissioner of Police, the State of New South Wales, a police officer Detective Senior Constable Elkins, Mr M P Degney who was the registrar of a Local Court, and the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is clear that the single defendant in the District Court proceedings and all of the defendants in the Supreme Court proceedings have an interest in the outcome of Mr Adamson's application. No point was taken about the application being made by a notice of motion in the Supreme Court proceedings. 4 At the hearing of the application Mr Adamson appeared in person. Mr Ede was represented by counsel (Mr Carney) and all of the five defendants in the Supreme Court proceedings were represented by the same counsel (Mr Hutchings). 5 The evidence on the application consisted of three fairly short affidavits by Mr Adamson and two fairly short affidavits by Mr Ede's solicitor.