Fregnan v Stanizzo; Stanizzo v Badarne; Stanizzo v State of New South Wales [2019] NSWSC 69

Fregnan v Stanizzo; Stanizzo v Badarne; Stanizzo v State of New South Wales [2019] NSWSC 69

The proceedings should be heard in the order in which they were filed because there was no compelling reason to disturb that natural order, the factual and credibility issues concerning Ms Fregnan's allegations were central and common to the proceedings, requiring Mr Stanizzo to go first could unfairly require him to prove falsity before his accuser had called her evidence, and any procedural disadvantage to Ms Fregnan could be ameliorated by restricting or quarantining cross-examination relating to her position as cross-defendant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling in Multiple Civil Proceedings Listed to Be Heard Together / Dispute About the Order in Which the Proceedings Should Be Heard
Outcome
Proceedings ordered to be heard in the order in which they were filed.
Legal Topics
['concurrent Hearing of Proceedings' 'order of Hearing' 'directions as to Conduct of Hearing' 'common Questions' 'malicious Prosecution' 'wrongful Arrest' 'assault']
['civil Procedure' 'tort'] ['concurrent Hearing of Proceedings' 'order of Hearing' 'directions as to Conduct of Hearing' 'common Questions' 'malicious Prosecution' 'wrongful Arrest' 'assault']

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

Procedural Ruling in Multiple Civil Proceedings Listed to Be Heard Together / Dispute About the Order in Which the Proceedings Should Be Heard

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether three proceedings listed for hearing together should be heard in an order different from the order in which they were filed.' 'Whether the proposed order of hearing would cause possible or perceived procedural disadvantage to any party.' 'Whether requiring Mr Stanizzo to commence would risk an inadvertent reversal of the onus of proof before Ms Fregnan had called evidence about her allegations.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings should be heard in the order in which they were filed because there was no compelling reason to disturb that natural order, the factual and credibility issues concerning Ms Fregnan's allegations were central and common to the proceedings, requiring Mr Stanizzo to go first could unfairly require him to prove falsity before his accuser had called her evidence, and any procedural disadvantage to Ms Fregnan could be ameliorated by restricting or quarantining cross-examination relating to her position as cross-defendant.

Court Disposition

Proceedings ordered to be heard in the order in which they were filed.

Orders

  • ['The proceedings be heard in the order in which they were filed.']