Joel Nathan Williams, Gloria May Williams, Robert Lee Anthony Williams v The State of New South Wales [2013] NSWDC 249

Joel Nathan Williams, Gloria May Williams, Robert Lee Anthony Williams v The State of New South Wales [2013] NSWDC 249

Because the State of New South Wales, through earlier criminal proceedings and the Attorney General's intervention, had accepted or acted on the basis that the convictions arising from the arrests should be set aside due to the failure to apply section 99(3) of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002, it was inappropriate and impermissible for the State in the later civil proceedings to maintain a defence that the first plaintiff's arrest was lawful. Paragraphs 23, 25 and 28 of the defence were therefore struck out.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings for Damages for Assault and False Imprisonment Arising From Police Arrests / Notice of Motion to Strike Out Paragraphs 23, 25 and 28 of the Defence
Outcome
Notice of motion granted; paragraphs 23, 25 and 28 of the defence struck out; costs reserved to be heard.
Legal Topics
['false Arrest' 'false Imprisonment' 'assault' 'strike Out Motion' 'lawfulness of Arrest Without Warrant' 'abuse of Process' 'no Issue Estoppel']
['civil' 'intentional Torts' 'civil Procedure' 'police Powers' 'estoppel/abuse of Process'] ['false Arrest' 'false Imprisonment' 'assault' 'strike Out Motion' 'lawfulness of Arrest Without Warrant' 'abuse of Process' 'no Issue Estoppel']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Proceedings for Damages for Assault and False Imprisonment Arising From Police Arrests / Notice of Motion to Strike Out Paragraphs 23, 25 and 28 of the Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether paragraphs 23, 25 and 28 of the defence asserting the lawfulness of the first plaintiff's arrest should be struck out as an abuse of process or as disclosing no reasonable defence." 'Whether the State of New South Wales should be permitted in civil proceedings to litigate facts inconsistent with positions accepted or procured in earlier criminal proceedings concerning the same arrests.' 'Whether police were entitled under section 99 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to arrest the first plaintiff without warrant for shoplifting.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the State of New South Wales, through earlier criminal proceedings and the Attorney General's intervention, had accepted or acted on the basis that the convictions arising from the arrests should be set aside due to the failure to apply section 99(3) of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002, it was inappropriate and impermissible for the State in the later civil proceedings to maintain a defence that the first plaintiff's arrest was lawful. Paragraphs 23, 25 and 28 of the defence were therefore struck out.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion granted; paragraphs 23, 25 and 28 of the defence struck out; costs reserved to be heard.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion is granted.' 'Paragraphs 23, 25 and 28 of the defence are struck out.' 'The parties will be heard on costs.']