//
[2025] NSWSC 1256
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of NSW
2025-09-24
McGuire J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: Clark v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 1256
Hearing dates: 24 September 2025
Date of orders: 24 September 2025
Decision date: 24 September 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: McGuire J
Decision: The application for the hearing to be vacated is dismissed.
Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Hearings — Adjournment — Where plaintiff seeks adjournment of final hearing due to lack of access to documents in custody — where plaintiff failed to comply with previous directions orders — where proceedings commenced in 2001 — where plaintiff’s conduct approaching scandal — application dismissed TORTS — false arrest — false imprisonment — malicious prosecution
Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Peter Frederick Clark (Plaintiff)
State of New South Wales (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
In Person (Plaintiff)
A N Williams (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Self-represented (Plaintiff)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2002/69098
The plaintiff, Mr Clark this morning has applied orally, without any formal application or notice of motion being filed or served, for the hearing of these proceedings to be adjourned generally. The plaintiff sues the defendant claiming damages for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and abuse of process. His statement of claim in these proceedings was initially filed in 2001. Further amended statements of claim were filed over the intervening years, with the ultimate pleading filed on 24 July 2020. The matter was listed for a hearing in this Court to commence on 7 July 2025 with a 10 day estimate.
On 15 July 2025 the matter came before me and I made various directions orders requiring, amongst other things, the plaintiff to prepare a list of documents that he required in order to conduct the hearing and to serve that list of documents on the defendant and forward it to the Commissioner of Corrective Services by 29 July 2025. I made that order on the basis of submissions made by the plaintiff that the documents he required in order to proceed with the hearing were on a laptop which he then told me was in the possession of the Commissioner of Corrective Services. I also made various recommendations for the Commissioner to provide printouts of the requested material by 12 August 2025, for that material then to be served by the plaintiff on the defendant by 26 August 2025, and various other consequential orders. I ordered that the matter be listed for a hearing to commence on 20 October 2025.
Since then the matter came back before me on 16 September 2025, listed by the defendant, because of inactivity on the plaintiff's part in complying with my previous orders. On 16 September 2025 I directed the plaintiff to serve any motion for any application he may wish to bring by 4:00 pm yesterday, 23 September 2025, and I directed the plaintiff to file and serve a detailed affidavit describing the attempts he had made to comply with my previous directions orders, and to obtain documents or electronic material from Corrective Services or otherwise which he says he needed in preparation for the hearing.
There has been no compliance with the first order in that no notice of motion was filed or served by 4:00 pm on 16 September 2025. In an apparent attempt to comply with the second order, a handwritten document in the form of a statement signed by the plaintiff and dated 18 September 2025 was forwarded to my chambers and to the legal representatives for the defendant. That document contains material that is largely irrelevant, including requests that the defendant and the Court assist the plaintiff in his requests to be transferred from the correctional facility in which he is presently held to Nunyara Community Offender Support Program Centre in Malabar. The parts of the affidavit which are presently relevant indicate that a document was completed by the plaintiff apparently dated 18 July 2025 which requested the Commissioner of Corrective Services to print all legal documents off a USB labelled "A". That document contains a note which appears to have been added subsequently stating: "Not actioned. Nothing delivered. Nothing on property list. Try again in two weeks." It can be assumed that that reference to "Try again in two weeks" is a fortnight after 18 July 2025. The plaintiff's statement is entirely silent on what, if any, steps he took after that two week period to follow up his request for the USB and is completely silent on any attempts, if there have been any, to provide a list of documents he required to be printed from his laptop to assist in his preparation for the hearing.
Various submissions have been made this morning by the plaintiff as to why he has been unable to comply with the order made some two and a half months ago to provide the list. Various submissions have been made by the plaintiff about why his handwritten statement is silent about various documents that he now submits are relevant to these issues, including what he says is a letter from the Commissioner of Corrective Services, apparently acknowledging that the Commissioner or somebody in Corrective Services now has his laptop and is reviewing it. None of that material has been put before the Court.
Mr Williams, counsel for the defendant, opposes the application to vacate the hearing. He submits that the plaintiff has failed to provide the list of documents, has failed to show that he has taken any genuine attempts to prepare for the hearing in the meantime, including by preparing cross‑examination notes, and has failed to address the submission made this morning and last week by Mr Williams that the plaintiff has the benefit of a pre‑prepared draft court book prepared by the defendant which includes material the defendant understands the plaintiff intends to rely on at the hearing.
Mr Williams submits that it is approaching scandalous that the plaintiff is failing to prepare for and conduct a hearing for proceedings commenced in this Court in 2001. That submission is fairly made. The matter is approaching a scandal in relation to the plaintiff’s apparent unwillingness to progress his proceedings and apparent unwillingness to take adequate steps comply with previous orders.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s application for the hearing to be vacated is dismissed. I confirm the matter remains listed for a hearing with a 10 day estimate commencing on 20 October 2025.
**********
Clark
State of New South Wales