Pritchard v Fryer; Pritchard v Fryer [2019] NSWSC 947

Pritchard v Fryer; Pritchard v Fryer [2019] NSWSC 947

Because s 338(1)(c) requires leave from the judicial officer before whom the alleged perjury occurred, the motion concerning alleged Supreme Court perjury must be heard by Robb J. The position concerning the alleged Local Court perjury was less clear and no view was expressed on whether s 338(2) was engaged. Both proceedings should be stood over until after the Federal Court bankruptcy notice hearing and to allow Mr Fryer time to obtain representation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Involving Notices of Motion for Leave to Bring Private Prosecutions for Alleged Perjury / Case Management; Notices of Motion Adjourned for Directions
Outcome
Notices of motion adjourned.
Legal Topics
['perjury' 'private Prosecution' 'leave to Prosecute' 'case Management' 'uncollected Goods' 'bankruptcy Notice']
['criminal Law' 'civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['perjury' 'private Prosecution' 'leave to Prosecute' 'case Management' 'uncollected Goods' 'bankruptcy Notice']

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

Equity Proceedings Involving Notices of Motion for Leave to Bring Private Prosecutions for Alleged Perjury / Case Management; Notices of Motion Adjourned for Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Mr Pritchard's notice of motion for leave to prosecute alleged Supreme Court perjury must be heard by Robb J under s 338(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)." 'Whether the application concerning alleged Local Court perjury may be heard by the Supreme Court if it is impossible or impracticable to apply for leave under s 338(1)(c).' 'Whether both proceedings should be adjourned pending the Federal Court hearing and to allow Mr Fryer time to seek legal representation.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because s 338(1)(c) requires leave from the judicial officer before whom the alleged perjury occurred, the motion concerning alleged Supreme Court perjury must be heard by Robb J. The position concerning the alleged Local Court perjury was less clear and no view was expressed on whether s 338(2) was engaged. Both proceedings should be stood over until after the Federal Court bankruptcy notice hearing and to allow Mr Fryer time to obtain representation.

Court Disposition

Notices of motion adjourned.

Orders

  • ['Both matters listed for directions before the Registrar on 25 September 2019.' 'Mr Pritchard given leave to approach the registrar to obtain a date for the hearing of both motions before Robb J.' 'Nothing should happen in either set of proceedings until after the hearing before Yates J in the Federal Court of...