FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board (No 2) [2014] FCA 1045
Citation: Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board (No 2) [2014] FCA 1045 Parties: RAOUL AGAPIS v PLUMBERS LICENSING BOARD File number: WAD 460 of 2013 Judge: GILMOUR J Date of judgment: 26 September 2014 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application by appellant for leave to amend grounds of appeal - application by respondent for orders pursuant to s 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – whether or not the appellant has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australian courts or tribunals – relevant principles Legislation: Constitution Ch III
High Court Rules (Cth) O 63 r 6
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37AM(1), 37AO
Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth)Cases cited: Agapis v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 132
Attorney General of NSW v Wilson [2010] NSWSC 1008
Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board [2013] FCA 1221
Attorney General v Chan [2011] NSWSC 1315
Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577
Fuller v Toms [2013] FCA 1422
HWY Rent Pty Ltd v HWY Rentals (in liq) (No 2) [2014] FCA 449
Jones v Cusack (1992) 109 ALR 313
Jones v Skyring (1992) 109 ALR 303
Ramsey v Skyring (1999) 164 ALR 378
Raoul Agapis and Plumbers Licensing Board [2013] AATA 187
In re Vernazza [1960] 1 QB 197
Singh v The Owners Strata Plan 11723 [2013] NSWSC 1595Date of hearing: 31 July 2014 Place: Perth Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 56 Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: Mr E Homan Solicitor for the Respondent: Building Commission
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
WAD 460 of 2013
BETWEEN: RAOUL AGAPIS
AppellantAND: PLUMBERS LICENSING BOARD
Respondent
JUDGE:
GILMOUR J
DATE OF ORDER:
26 SEPTEMBER 2014
WHERE MADE:
PERTH
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appellant’s interlocutory application filed on 3 June 2014 be dismissed.
2.The appeal proceeding be dismissed.
3.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal proceeding, including in relation to the appellant’s interlocutory application filed on 3 June 2014.
4.The appellant be prohibited from instituting proceedings in the Court.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
WAD 460 of 2013
BETWEEN: RAOUL AGAPIS
AppellantAND: PLUMBERS LICENSING BOARD
Respondent
JUDGE:
GILMOUR J
DATE:
26 SEPTEMBER 2014
PLACE:
PERTH
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The appellant has by interlocutory application sought leave to amend his grounds of appeal. I would dismiss this application for reasons set out later in these reasons.
The respondent has applied for orders under s 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the FCA Act).
Relevantly the following issues arise on the respondent’s application:
(a)whether the appellant has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious…
Continue reading Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board (No 2) [2014] FCA 1045
- Case
- [2014] FCA 1045
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether Mr Agapis's history of legal actions constituted vexatious litigation and whether the court should prohibit him from instituting further proceedings. The court had to consider relevant principles and authorities on vexatious litigation and assess the facts of the case to determine if the appellant's conduct met the threshold for such a prohibition. The court was also required to consider the appropriate remedy if it found the appellant's conduct to be vexatious.
In reaching its decision, the court examined the appellant's history of legal actions and determined that he had indeed frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings. The court found that the appellant's conduct met the threshold for a prohibition under the Federal Court of Australia Act. As a result, the court dismissed the appellant's application for leave to amend the grounds of appeal and dismissed the appeal itself. The court also ordered that the appellant pay the respondent's costs and prohibited the appellant from instituting further proceedings in the court.
The final orders of the court were that the appellant's interlocutory application filed on 3 June 2014 be dismissed, the appeal proceeding be dismissed, the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal proceeding, and the appellant be prohibited from instituting proceedings in the court. The entry of these orders was governed by Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appellant’s interlocutory application filed on 3 June 2014 be dismissed.
2. The appeal proceeding be dismissed.
3. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal proceeding, including in relation to the appellant’s interlocutory application filed on 3 June 2014.
4. The appellant be prohibited from instituting proceedings in the Court.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.