Clyne v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 630

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Clyne v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 630 Hearing dates: 14-23 June 2011 Decision date: 24 June 2011 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Fullerton J Decision: 1. In regard to the action for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 (as amended), 5 (as amended), 6, 7 and 8 of the fourth amended statement of claim, judgment for the defendant. 2. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs with costs calculated as and from 2 June 2011 to be paid on an indemnity basis. Catchwords: TORTS - wrongful arrest - false imprisonment - order pursuant to Part 29 r 10 of the UCPR Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Cases Cited: Clyne v State of New South Wales [2011] NSWSC 629 Director of Public Prosecutions v Nicholls [2001] NSWSC 523; 123 A Crim R 66 Zaravinos v State of New South Wales [2004] NSWCA 320; 62 NSWLR 58 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Janet Lorraine Clyne (Plaintiff) State of New South Wales (Defendant) Representation: Counsel M McAuley (Plaintiff) P Menzies QC/M Hutchings (Defendant) Solicitors Collins & Thompson Solicitors (Plaintiff) Crown Solicitor's Office (Defendant) File Number(s): 2009/297847

Judgment 1By a fourth amended statement of claim the plaintiff brings proceedings against the State of New South Wales for damages (including damages for psychiatric injury) resulting from what she alleges to be her unlawful arrest and false imprisonment on 25 October 2003 and a malicious prosecution after she was served with a Court Attendance Notice alleging a breach of s 156 of the Crimes Act 1900 on 16 August 2007. 2At the close of the plaintiff's case the defendant sought an order pursuant to Part 29 r 10 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 ("UCPR") for judgment in respect of the claim for malicious prosecution on the ground that the claim could not be supported. The defendant also sought an order that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of that claim. 3Detailed submissions were directed by both parties to the evidence and to the applicable law. 4On 22 June 2011 I gave judgment for the defendant. I also ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of that claim as assessed or agreed. I published reasons for coming to that conclusion ([2011] NSWSC 629). In that judgment I set out the factual matrix which gave rise to the plaintiff being prosecuted for larceny as a servant. Those facts are also relevant to the circumstances relating to her arrest.