Anderson v State of New South Wales [2024] NSWSC 1254 (Link to Caselaw).
In this interesting interlocutory decision, the defendant had filed a motion seeking a stay of orders requiring the parties to mediate or hold an informal settlement conference (in the context of an abuse claim) on the basis that the plaintiff had an outstanding criminal warrant issued by the ACT Magistrates Court.
The court said at [17] – [18]:
I do not accept that the fact that any plaintiff in this Court is the subject of an outstanding Bench Warrant or other obligation in the criminal justice system is a reason for any party to civil litigation which is not directly concerned with, or addressed to, the circumstances of the outstanding criminal obligation is thereby excused from participating in the civil proceedings in accordance with the Court’s order.
Whilst it will be a question of fact in each case as to the extent of any suggested failure of compliance with an obligation of the criminal law, it is simply not within the power or remit of a litigant in civil proceedings by use of the procedures available in the civil proceedings to compel another party to the litigation to address an outstanding obligation under the criminal law in either this State or another State. The matters are separate and independent, and one cannot compel compliance with an outstanding legal obligation by unilaterally refusing to engage in civil litigation.
The judgment does not make clear if the plaintiff was expected to attend the mediation in person.
[BillMaddensWordpress #2309]