Action ruled vexatious
Ruling as vexatious an act . lion against a former presi- i si dent of the Court of Appeal, I r Sir Thaddeus McCarthy, for i - §129,184 damages for alleged I 3 negligence in dealing with t an appeal, Mr Justice Roper. . in a judgment, in the Su- I Jpreme Court at Wellington, i .'has struck out the statement. 1 , of claim on the ground that l : it disclosed no cause of ac- i -■cion. 1 51 The judgment staved the i slaction. 1 -i The plaintiff was Edward t F Francis Nakhla, a casual • I worker, whose appeal 1 } against conviction in the Su- ( r preme Court a; Wellington j ’ on a charge of frequenting a public place with felonious . intent was dismissed by the j s Court of Appeal t J The conviction however, ; was subsequently quashed □ on appeal to the Pr'vy , i Council. t , “The plaintiff has two < • basic criticisms of tne rea- I . sons for judgment as deliv- < Feted by Sir Thaddeus,” Mr J Justice Roper said. j 'I “First, that •here was noli | reference therein to the, (issue of ‘frequenting’ pnj] (which counsel had made ( detailed submissions; and second, according to the i I plaintiff, that it attributed to ; : his counsel a ‘final’ submis- j j sion which had never been i (made, namely a general sub- < t mission that the verdict was ' I unreasonable or unsuppor-p (table on the evidence.” 5 His Honour said that sub-;' ! sequently, plaintiff’s counsel j J were called to the judge’s' : chambers where it was; ' indicated to them by Sir Thaddeus — in the presence! of the other two members of ’ the Court, Mr Justice Richmond and Mr Justice Beattie! i— that through an admijnistrative error, a page had I . been missed from the judg-l iment delivered, the page); dealing with “frequenting.” . ? “What is alleged, in short, | ■ is that when the appeal was|] 5 dismissed and when the ‘fur- h ' ther reasons for judgment’!, were delivered, Sir Thaddeus! .'acted and knew he was act-1' jling without jurisdiction and' l ,I failed on each occasion to;I 31 act bona fide. II
“The statement of defence is, in essence, a denial of the plaintiff’s allegations and ’ asserts that everything done ' by Sir Thaddeus in relation ' to the appeal and the 1 plaintiff’s motion was done by him in the exercise and performance of bis judicial ’ function as the president efn the Court, which Court was!* performing its function »>f|; hearing or determining an;] appeal by the plaintiff and his motion relating to the appeal. “After the best consideration of the matter that I am capable of giving it, 1 can reach no other conclusion but that this claim could not possibly succeed, and that to *■ permit it to go further would ' indeed be an abuse of the c processes of the Court,” his • Honour said. “On the evidence of Mr t Justice Beattie, there was an 1 adjudication on the ‘fre- ‘ quenting’ issue, and the ( failure of the Court to in- S corporate its finding in the judg. tent was in no sense an < act cl me with jurisdiction—(l and allegations of malice orp lack of bona tides on the it ' part of Sir Thaddeus add 11 nothing to the plaintiff’s'; case. 1 “My view is that the Court!; had jurisdiction to decide ii the case before it. and its < immunity is complete, if indeed there is any need to i call in aid that long- ' established immunity,” said * ;his Honour. “For my part, I do not think there is such i j a need. I
“At best, there was an irregularitv within jurisdiction, a regrettable irregularity and one that should not have occurred but not such that could possibly supply the basis for an action.” he said. The Solicitor-General (Mr R. C. Savage, Q.C.), with him Mr D. P. Neazor, appeared for Sir Thaddeus and Mr W. | V. Gazley, with him Mr D. S. C. Deacon, for the plaintiff. Mr Nakhla.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19761117.2.31
Bibliographic details
Press, 17 November 1976, Page 3
Word Count
662Action ruled vexatious Press, 17 November 1976, Page 3
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Copyright in all Footrot Flats cartoons is owned by Diogenes Designs Ltd. The National Library has been granted permission to digitise these cartoons and make them available online as part of this digitised version of the Press. You can search, browse, and print Footrot Flats cartoons for research and personal study only. Permission must be obtained from Diogenes Designs Ltd for any other use.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.