Court of Appeal (Vic)|2025-12-17|Before: Meara J, Walker JA

For the reasons given above, I consider that the application for leave to appeal has no prospects of success and must be refused.
I note, for completeness, that if the judge were to be regarded as having constructively made a determination not to direct the Prothonotary to accept the proposed Writ for filing, his Honour would have been correct to do so, for the reasons he gave.

[1] I note that the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2025 (the '2025 Rules') came into operation on 8 September 2025. The 2025 Rules apply 'to every civil proceeding commenced in the Court whether before, on or after the commencement date' (r 1.05(1)). The 2025 Rules are relevantly unchanged from the 2015 Rules.

[3] Re Thorpe [2024] VSCA 172, [9]-[12] (citations in original).

[4] O'Bryan v Lindholm [2024] VSCA 130; (2024) 74 VR 496, 509 [66] (Kennedy, Walker and Macaulay JJA); [2024] VSCA 130) ('O'Bryan'), citing Moorabbin Transit Pty Ltd v Bekhit [2016] VSCA 70; (2016) 50 VR 563, 572 [37] (Tate, Ferguson and McLeish JJA); [2016] VSCA 70.

[5] O'Bryan [2024] VSCA 130; (2024) 74 VR 496, 510 [68] (Kennedy, Walker and Macaulay JJA); [2024] VSCA 130.

[6] O'Bryan [2024] VSCA 130; (2024) 74 VR 496, 511 [71]-[72] (Kennedy, Walker and Macaulay JJA); [2024] VSCA 130, citing Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (Vic) (2001) 207 CLR 72, 78 [10]-[11] (Gaudron, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ, Kirby J agreeing at 87 [40]); [2001] HCA 49.

[7] O'Bryan [2024] VSCA 130; (2024) 74 VR 496, 511-3 [73]-[79] (Kennedy, Walker and Macaulay JJA); [2024] VSCA 130, citing City of Camberwell v Camberwell Shopping Centre Pty Ltd [1994] VicRp 10; [1994] 1 VR 163, 169 (Fullagar J) and TGIO v Viney [1995] TASSC 20; (1995) 4 Tas R 236, 242, 243 (Underwood J).

[8] O'Bryan [2024] VSCA 130; (2024) 74 VR 496, 514 [87]-[88] (Kennedy, Walker and Macaulay JJA); [2024] VSCA 130.

[9] O'Bryan [2024] VSCA 130; (2024) 74 VR 496, 517 [96] (Kennedy, Walker and Macaulay JJA); [2024] VSCA 130.

[11] Often referred to by the Latin phrase 'obiter dicta'.

[12] I note that there is a question whether a decision by a judge of the Trial Division not to direct the Prothonotary to accept a document for filing, or to direct that a document be rejected for filing, is a determination of a kind capable of engaging this Court's appellate jurisdiction. It is not necessary for me to determine that question in the present case.

Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2025

Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015

Thorpe v Prothonotary [2025] VSCA 332 (17 December 2025)

Thorpe v Prothonotary [2024] VSC 360 (O'Meara J)

Re Thorpe [2024] VSCA 172; O'Bryan v Lindholm [2024] VSCA 130; (2024) 74 VR 496, considered.

Thorpe v Prothonotary [2025] VSCA 332

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (12 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (3)

Cases Cited (7)

Thorpe v Prothonotary [2025] VSCA 332 (17 December 2025)