Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales

Batistatos v Newcastle City Council [2006] HCA 27
Judgment date
Case number
S530/2005
S531/2005
Before
Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan, Heydon, Crennan JJ
Catchwords

Abuse of Process – Delay – Proceedings commenced in 1994 in respect of causes of action which accrued in 1965 – Appellant suffered quadriplegia and other injuries in motor accident allegedly caused by the negligence of, and nuisance created by, the respondents – Appellant born mentally retarded and later orphaned – Applications brought by respondents for summary dismissal or permanent stay for abuse of process – Whether, due to the effluxion of time since the causes of action accrued, a fair trial was not possible for the respondents.

Abuse of Process – Delay – Factors to be considered in determining whether delay precludes the conduct of a fair trial – Whether actions commenced by appellant untenable or futile – Whether actions commenced by appellant present real question to be determined – Sufficiency of evidence – Relevance of fundamental right to bring legal proceedings – Relevance of summarily denying right to a trial – Relevance of appellant's severely disabled condition – Relevance of the extent of the investigations made by the parties – Relevance of the disparity in the economic resources of the parties – Relevance of fact that the 30 year ultimate limitation bar had not yet descended.

Limitation of Actions – Appellant born mentally disabled and suffered quadriplegia in the accident out of which these proceedings arose – Appellant's causes of action not subject to 6 year limitation period which would otherwise have been imposed by the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) by reason of the appellant's disabilities – Actions commenced within 30 year ultimate limitation period – Whether Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) precludes court from summarily dismissing or permanently staying proceedings for abuse of process when actions commenced before expiry of limitation period – Whether exercise of power to dismiss or stay in such circumstances is exceptional and requires proof of oppressive or contumelious conduct on the part of the plaintiff.

Courts – Powers of courts – Whether supplementary power of Supreme Court of New South Wales properly described as inherent or implied – Distinction between inherent powers and implied powers – Basis from which the State Supreme Court derives its jurisdiction to summarily dismiss or permanently stay proceedings.

Courts – Powers of courts – Jurisdiction – Rules of Court – Whether Rules of Court are exhaustive of the circumstances in which the Supreme Court can dismiss or stay proceedings for abuse of process – Weight to be given to the relevant legislative context in exercising discretion to dismiss or stay proceedings – Where both Rules of Court and supplementary jurisdiction empower Supreme Court to stay or dismiss proceedings for abuse of process – Relationship between supplementary jurisdiction and Rules of Court.

Words and phrases – "abuse of process", "delay", "inherent jurisdiction", "implied jurisdiction".

Limitation Act 1623 (Imp) (21 Jac I c 16) – ss 3, 7.

Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) – ss 5, 11(3), 51(1), 52.

Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW).

Supreme Court Rules (NSW)
– Pt 13 r 5.

Files
27.rtf (131.87 KB)
27.pdf (289.99 KB)