Darrin Gillies’ claim against lawyers thrown out of Supreme Court

Darrin Gillies outside Belmont court in 2004 HE’S filed lawsuits claiming damages and compensation in excess of $4 million against various defendants.
Shanghai night field

Now former Newcastle property developer and convicted rapist Darrin Gillies has once again had one of his claims labelled an ‘‘abuse of process’’.

The most recent chapter ended on Friday where a case against his former lawyers, Nic Moir and Chris O’Brien, as well as the lawyers who opposed him in a suite of litigation a decade ago was summarily dismissed.

The dismissal came just months after a $4million claim against the victim of the sexual assault, a claim in relation to a property at Anna Bay and another suit against another set of lawyers were also thrown out by the Supreme Court.

Gillies was jailed in 2006 for six years and eight months with a non-parole period of five years after he was convicted of one count of sexual assault.

Gillies had filmed himself performing sex acts with a woman who was either heavily intoxicated or asleep at Warners Bay in 2004.

He was acquitted of other charges.

Gillies filed a number of lawsuits in the Supreme Court last December including one against the State of NSW claiming that police and prosecutors were motivated by malice.

That case was adjourned in September when the judge disqualified himself from hearing the case because he knew one of the prosecutors involved.

Gillies’ most recent case was against Mr Moir, Mr O’Brien and the partners at Harris Wheeler Lawyers.

Gillies claimed that he was owed about $88,000 in relation to a suite of litigation involving the parties a decade ago.

That claim was summarily dismissed on Friday with Justice Peter Garling saying:

‘‘It is an abuse of the process of this court for a litigant with no entitlement to bring proceedings, as Mr Gillies does not, to commence proceedings for claims which are clearly statute barred, as these claims are, in circumstances where the pleading is irrational and unintelligible.’’

The defendants, as in the other cases, were awarded costs.


Comments are closed.