GRIFFIN David James v SOGELEASE AUSTRALIA LIMITED & ORS [2002] NSWCA 421

GRIFFIN David James v SOGELEASE AUSTRALIA LIMITED & ORS [2002] NSWCA 421

Leave to appeal was refused because the likelihood of criminal prosecution and the applicant's asserted right to silence did not of themselves justify staying the civil proceedings. No particular factor was identified showing a real, rather than merely notional, danger of injustice in future criminal proceedings, and Barrett J applied the correct discretionary principles. The evidentiary complaint did not warrant leave because the material played no material part in the reasons and was not tendered as an admission for the purposes of s.84 of the Evidence Act 1995.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Application to Stay Civil Proceedings Where Criminal Prosecution Was Likely / Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Order Refusing a Stay of Proceedings
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['stay of Civil Proceedings Pending Likely Criminal Prosecution' 'right to Silence' 'felony Tort Rule' 'admissions Under Evidence Act 1995 S.84' 'interlocutory Leave to Appeal']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['stay of Civil Proceedings Pending Likely Criminal Prosecution' 'right to Silence' 'felony Tort Rule' 'admissions Under Evidence Act 1995 S.84' 'interlocutory Leave to Appeal']

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

Practice and Procedure Application to Stay Civil Proceedings Where Criminal Prosecution Was Likely / Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Order Refusing a Stay of Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether civil proceedings should be stayed because a criminal prosecution arising out of the same events was likely.' "Whether the applicant's asserted right to silence and risk of admissions in pleadings, discovery or other civil steps justified a stay." 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted on a challenge to evidence said to be affected by s.84 of the Evidence Act 1995.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the likelihood of criminal prosecution and the applicant's asserted right to silence did not of themselves justify staying the civil proceedings. No particular factor was identified showing a real, rather than merely notional, danger of injustice in future criminal proceedings, and Barrett J applied the correct discretionary principles. The evidentiary complaint did not warrant leave because the material played no material part in the reasons and was not tendered as an admission for the purposes of s.84 of the Evidence Act 1995.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.' 'The applicant is to pay the costs of the application.']