Fregnan v Stanizzo; Stanizzo v Badarne; Stanizzo v State of New South Wales [2019] NSWSC 628

Fregnan v Stanizzo; Stanizzo v Badarne; Stanizzo v State of New South Wales [2019] NSWSC 628

The statement did not support a rational inference that Detective Murdock was influenced by Detective Hogan's alleged animus or that it was relevant to a fact in issue, and its late admission would unfairly prejudice the State. The tax invoices were evidence for Mr Stanizzo's case in chief rather than reply evidence, were not included in the court book, and their late admission for substantive purposes would unfairly prejudice Mr Badarne. The notices to produce, except where documents had already been produced or production was not opposed, lacked a legitimate forensic purpose, were oppressive, sought material from or concerning non-parties, or sought documents not shown to bear on issues...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding Claiming Damages for Malicious Prosecution; Procedural Ruling / Trial Ruling on Proposed Tenders in Reply and Notice of Motion to Set Aside Notices to Produce
Outcome
Tender of the statement and tax invoices rejected; notices to produce set aside except to the extent documents had already been produced or production was not opposed.
Legal Topics
['malicious Prosecution' 'relevance' 'evidence in Reply' 'unfair Prejudice' 'notices to Produce' 'legitimate Forensic Purpose' 'oppression']
['civil Procedure' 'evidence' 'torts'] ['malicious Prosecution' 'relevance' 'evidence in Reply' 'unfair Prejudice' 'notices to Produce' 'legitimate Forensic Purpose' 'oppression']

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 Proceeding Claiming Damages for Malicious Prosecution; Procedural Ruling / Trial Ruling on Proposed Tenders in Reply and Notice of Motion to Set Aside Notices to Produce

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Stanizzo should be granted leave to tender his statement dated 21 February 2019 after it had previously been rejected as irrelevant.' 'Whether the statement was relevant to proof of malice by former Detective Murdock or would unfairly prejudice the State of New South Wales.' 'Whether tax invoices issued to the Ayoub interests should be admitted as evidence in reply or for broader purposes.' "Whether Mr Badarne's notice of motion to set aside or restrain reliance on Mr Stanizzo's notices to produce should be granted." 'Whether the notices to produce had a legitimate forensic purpose or were oppressive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The statement did not support a rational inference that Detective Murdock was influenced by Detective Hogan's alleged animus or that it was relevant to a fact in issue, and its late admission would unfairly prejudice the State. The tax invoices were evidence for Mr Stanizzo's case in chief rather than reply evidence, were not included in the court book, and their late admission for substantive purposes would unfairly prejudice Mr Badarne. The notices to produce, except where documents had already been produced or production was not opposed, lacked a legitimate forensic purpose, were oppressive, sought material from or concerning non-parties, or sought documents not shown to bear on issues...

Court Disposition

Tender of the statement and tax invoices rejected; notices to produce set aside except to the extent documents had already been produced or production was not opposed.

Orders

  • ["The tender of Mr Stanizzo's statement dated 21 February 2019 is rejected." 'The tender of the tax invoices is rejected.' 'Except to the extent that documents have already been produced, or Mr Badarne does not oppose production, each of the notices to produce issued by Mr Stanizzo should be set aside.']