Martin v State of New South Wales

Court of Appeal (NSW)|2015-05-05|Before: Beazley P, Basten JA, Schmidt J, Hidden J

Background

In order to explain why leave was refused, it is necessary to place the application in its somewhat complicated procedural context. The Attorney applied for orders under the Vexatious Proceedings Act on 12 July 2012. On 4 March 2013 Hidden J made a vexatious proceedings order in the terms sought by the Attorney. The effect of the order was, subject to the grant of leave by the Supreme Court, to prevent Mr Martin instituting proceedings in New South Wales courts and staying any proceedings already on foot.
On 24 March 2014 this Court granted Mr Martin leave to appeal from the orders made by Hidden J. In the course of the hearing in this Court, questions were raised as to the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted before the primary judge, with the real possibility that insufficient findings were made by him to justify the orders made. Following the hearing in this Court, the parties agreed that the appeal should be allowed and the orders made by Hidden J set aside. Orders in the terms agreed, together with an order for remittal to the Common Law Division, were made by this Court on 13 June 2014: Martin v Attorney General for the State of New South Wales. [1]
In that judgment this Court noted an issue concerning the role of the Attorney General: [2] "It appears that no court in New South Wales has yet considered whether it is both appropriate and consistent with the rationale underlying the [Vexatious Proceedings Act] for the Attorney General to apply for a vexatious proceedings order against a person engaged in litigation against the State or an agency of the State."
It was noted that the principal matters on which the Attorney relied in order to support the order were proceedings involving (though not limited to) the State of New South Wales.

Conclusions

If the steps taken in preparation for the Vexatious Proceedings Act hearing were inadequate, this was a matter properly to be dealt with in that litigation, rather than by way of appeal from the orders of Schmidt J made in the summons proceedings. It is not apparent that any prejudice to the conduct of the Vexatious Proceedings Act litigation arose from the orders made on 19 December 2014. It was undoubtedly correct to refuse to order the separate causes of action to be heard with the Vexatious Proceedings Act application, as had been foreshadowed in the reasons of this Court in setting aside the orders of Hidden J.
The motion raised no issue of principle and its dismissal should not cause practical prejudice to the applicant. For these reasons, the Court was not persuaded that this was an appropriate case for a grant of leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment dealing with matters of case management.

Endnotes

[2014] NSWCA 189 ("Martin").
Martin at [18].
Judgment at [13], set out by Schmidt J at [8].
At [9].
Martin at [26].
Tcpt, 18/02/15, pp 104-106.
Tcpt, pp 107-108.
Tcpt, 19/02/15, pp 155-156.
Tcpt, 18/12/14, p 17. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 22 May 2015

Solicitors: Applicant Self-represented I V Knight, Crown Solicitor for NSW (First and Second Respondents) File Number(s): 2014/376507 Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Supreme Court Citation: [2014] NSWSC 1834 Date of Decision: 19 December 2014 Before: Schmidt J File Number(s): 2014/271283

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (4 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (2)

Cited By (1)