Pritchard v Fryer; Pritchard v Hall [2018] NSWSC 1141

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Pritchard v Fryer; Pritchard v Hall [2018] NSWSC 1141 Hearing dates: 23 July 2018 Date of orders: 23 July 2018 Decision date: 23 July 2018 Before: Kunc J Decision: Proceedings dismissed or (in one case) stayed; plaintiff not to commence other proceedings without leave; case management orders made Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Summary disposal – Dismissal of proceedings – Multiple proceedings commenced in relation to the same dispute – Plaintiff restrained from commencing any other proceedings without leave –Case management to enable the real issues in dispute between the parties to be determined by appropriately constituted proceedings Legislation Cited: Uncollected Goods Act 1995 (NSW) Cases Cited: Pritchard v Fryer (Unpublished, 6 June 2018, Pembroke J) Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Andrew Ronald Pritchard (Plaintiff) Gregory Robert Fryer (Defendant) Damon John Hall (Defendant proceedings 2018/59275 only) Representation: Counsel: P Sharrock (Defendants)

Solicitors: HPL Law Group (proceedings 2018/59275 only) File Number(s): 2018/124156; 2018/151411; 2018/63434; 2016/90273; 2018/59275 Publication restriction: No

EX TEMPORE Judgment (REVISED) 1. Before the Court today are several proceedings, all of which concern a dispute between Mr Andrew Pritchard (the plaintiff) and Mr Gregory Fryer (the defendant). 2. The underlying dispute that has given rise to a plethora of litigation in this and other courts concerns guitars and related equipment (the "Guitars") which are currently held by Mr Fryer. Putting the matter neutrally, Mr Pritchard claims that he is entitled to the return of the Guitars. It is unnecessary for me to set out in these reasons any more about the history or basis of the dispute concerning the Guitars other than to say that the legal mechanism for its ultimate resolution is, by common agreement, the making of an application by Mr Fryer against Mr Pritchard under the Uncollected Goods Act 1995 (NSW) (the "Act"). 3. On 6 June 2018 in Pritchard v Fryer (unpublished), a judgment delivered in three of the proceedings that are before me, Pembroke J dismissed three notices of motion brought by Mr Pritchard against Mr Fryer. At the conclusion of his reasons, his Honour said: "30. In each of those three applications I order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the application. It is appropriate to order that the costs be paid on a gross sum basis. That has occurred, I was informed, in every matter in which the plaintiff has failed in this Court and in the Local Court. I have arranged with the Chief Judge in Equity for the defendant's three applications for gross sum cost orders to be heard by Kunc J on 23 July 2018. I stand over each of these proceedings to that date. The defendant should file and serve his evidence in support of the applications for gross sum costs order by 30 June 2018. The defendant should give consideration to whether he should apply for an order declaring the plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant." 1. That is how three of these proceedings came to be before me today. In the interests of the timely and cost effective administration of justice, two other sets of proceedings to which I have referred (but which were not before Pembroke J) have also been listed before me today. As I will go on to explain, in four of those proceedings Mr Fryer has filed notices of motion seeking the peremptory dismissal, stay or other disposal of those proceedings and orders (whether in the inherent jurisdiction of the Court or under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) (the "VP Act")) restraining Mr Pritchard from commencing further proceedings against Mr Fryer in an endeavour to bring to an end what has been described as a torrent of litigation. 2. I intended to conduct today as an extended directions hearing to bring order to what can only be described, without disrespect to any of the parties, as a procedural mess. As a result of the exchanges between the Court and Mr Pritchard (who appeared for himself) and Mr P Sharrock of Counsel (who appeared on direct access brief for Mr Fryer and also for a Mr Damon Hall, whose role I shall explain in due course) the Court is able to make a number of substantive orders disposing of some of the proceedings and directions to progress what remains. However, it is important to make three things clear about the outcome of today. 3. First, the overriding intention of the orders that I will in due course pronounce is to bring on for hearing the ultimate dispute between the parties, namely the question of entitlement to the Guitars, through the medium of an application under the Act. Mr Pritchard has made it clear that what he wants in order to bring this disputation to an end is to get the Guitars back. Mr Fryer has indicated, through his counsel, that he accepts that the determination of that issue is the only way in which the litigation between him and Mr Pritchard has any realistic prospect of concluding. 4. Second, and consistent with the attitude to which I have just referred, Mr Fryer has not pressed today for relief in the nature of a stay of the various proceedings pending Mr Pritchard's payment of various outstanding costs orders. That attitude, if I may respectfully say so, represents an entirely sensible recognition of the fact that only if the ultimate question in relation to the Guitars is determined is there any hope that this litigation will come to an end. However, I wish to make it clear that nothing I am doing today is intended to pre-judge or forestall any later application by Mr Fryer in relation to such rights as he may have by reason of the outstanding costs orders. 5. Third, and similarly to the preceding point, Mr Fryer has not pressed for orders under the VP Act. However, as will become apparent, in order to keep a tight rein on the dispute between the parties and to ensure that there is only one forum for the resolution of their dispute (unless there is some very good reason otherwise), I propose to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to confine Mr Pritchard to the proceedings for which I propose to grant leave under the Act. The orders that I will make are intended to ensure that Mr Pritchard commences no other proceedings in relation to his dispute with Mr Fryer without leave of the Court until the resolution of the proceedings under the Act or further order. Those orders are made to facilitate the appropriate case management of the one set of proceedings that will now go forward under the Act to resolve the real issues in dispute between these parties. 6. It is now necessary for me to say something about each set of proceedings and to give brief reasons for the orders that I will make in each of those proceedings.