POTIER v ARNOTT & ORS [2010] NSWSC 144

POTIER v ARNOTT & ORS [2010] NSWSC 144

Leave was refused because the proposed claims were either barred by statutory immunity or advocate immunity, disclosed no actionable fault or prima facie ground as required by s 5 of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981, or in the case of the Commissioner of Corrective Services amounted to an abuse of process since the pleaded matters could not support damages or other relief.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Applications for Leave to Institute Civil Proceedings by a Prisoner Subject to the Felons (civil Proceedings) Act 1981 / Leave to Commence Proceedings
Outcome
Leave refused in all four proposed proceedings.
Legal Topics
['leave to Institute Proceedings by Felon' 'prima Facie Ground for Proceedings' 'legal Aid Commission Immunity' 'advocate Immunity' 'prosecutorial Conduct' 'prison Administration' 'abuse of Process']
['civil Procedure' 'legal Aid' 'legal Profession' 'prison Law' 'tort Law'] ['leave to Institute Proceedings by Felon' 'prima Facie Ground for Proceedings' 'legal Aid Commission Immunity' 'advocate Immunity' 'prosecutorial Conduct' 'prison Administration' 'abuse of Process']

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

Applications for Leave to Institute Civil Proceedings by a Prisoner Subject to the Felons (civil Proceedings) Act 1981 / Leave to Commence Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Potier should be granted leave under the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 to commence proceedings against the Legal Aid Commission of NSW for refusing legal aid funding.' 'Whether proposed proceedings against David Arnott SC, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General were barred or lacked a prima facie basis.' 'Whether proposed proceedings against McGowan Lawyers and Mr T Healey concerning their conduct and withdrawal from proceedings were barred by advocate immunity or lacked a prima facie basis.' 'Whether proposed proceedings against the Commissioner, Department of Corrective Services could succeed as a claim for damages or other relief arising from prison administration.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the proposed claims were either barred by statutory immunity or advocate immunity, disclosed no actionable fault or prima facie ground as required by s 5 of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981, or in the case of the Commissioner of Corrective Services amounted to an abuse of process since the pleaded matters could not support damages or other relief.

Court Disposition

Leave refused in all four proposed proceedings.

Orders

  • ['I refuse Mr Potier leave to bring against Mr David Arnott, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General proceedings upon the basis of the matters referred to in the Summons, Statement of Claim and Statement of Issues marked as filed in the Common Law Division of this Court and given number...