Application of Pamela Budd - [2020] NSWSC 452

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Application of Pamela Budd [2020] NSWSC 452
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 28 April 2020
Decision date: 28 April 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Fagan J
Decision:
1. The plaintiff’s application pursuant to s 14 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 for leave to re-commence proceedings No 256622/2006 is refused.
2. The summons is dismissed.

Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – parties – vexatious litigant – leave to re-commence proceedings refused
Legislation Cited: Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW)
Real Property Act 1900 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Attorney General v Budd [2013] NSWSC 155
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Pamela Joan Budd
Registrar-General
Representation:
Counsel:
N/A
Solicitors:
Lincoln Legal (plaintiff)
N/A

File Number(s): 2020/67963
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

On 19 April 2013, for reasons given in Attorney General v Budd [2013] NSWSC 155, Hall J made the following order:

(1) Pursuant to s 8(7)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008, Pamela Joan Theresa Budd is prohibited from instituting proceedings in New South Wales other than with leave of an appropriate court under that Act.

Ms Budd now applies pursuant to s 14 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act2008 (NSW) for leave to “resume” proceeding No 265622 of 2006 in the Common Law Division of this Court.

Budd v Registrar-General (No 265622 of 2006)

Ms Budd commenced her 2006 proceeding on 27 October 2006 by filing a summons naming the Director General of Lands Titles as defendant. The summons was a pro forma printed document with the required particulars completed in barely legible handwriting. The “Relief claimed” section was filled out in these terms:

I claim relief from Director of Lands Titles Office $500,000 for compensation for present market value of the loss of my legally owned Wyong Land estate Real whole [?] Land Delia Avenue. I claim the [?] Distress and the loss and pain from fraudulent transfer of land.

Despite its irregular form the summons was accepted for filing and was marked with a listing date of 30 January 2007. At the same time Ms Budd filed a notice of motion, which was given the same return date. This was also a printed pro forma document with handwritten entries. The “Orders sought” section was completed as follows:

1. Pay me for present market value of Wyong my Land estate.
2. Pay me compensation for the painful and suffering from the fraud transfers loss of my Real Property estate Wyong land in Breach of the Land’s Titles and Crimes Act against me.
Order No (2) seek $1.2 million and the wrong Fraud Transfers.
Remove all fraud from Register.
Amy for the Breach of Lands Titles Act

Ms Budd did not personally serve the summons but sent it by facsimile to the Department of Lands on 23 November 2006. A notice of appearance was filed on 6 December 2006. On 30 January 2007 Deputy Registrar Haggett conducted a directions hearing with Ms Budd attending by telephone, at her request. She had…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Application of Pamela Budd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] NSWSC 452
Decision Date: 28 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pamela Budd brought an application to the Supreme Court of Victoria against the Commonwealth of Australia, seeking damages for alleged asbestos exposure. The court had previously found her to be a vexatious litigant, barring her from initiating further proceedings without leave. Budd applied for leave to re-commence her claim, asserting that she had new evidence warranting a re-evaluation of her case.

The central legal issue the court addressed was whether Budd's new evidence was sufficient to justify granting leave to re-commence her proceedings. The court needed to assess whether the new evidence represented a significant change in circumstances warranting the lifting of the vexatious litigant order. It also had to consider whether allowing the recommencement of proceedings would be in the interests of justice.

The court found that the new evidence provided by Budd did not constitute a substantial change in the circumstances of her case. The evidence was largely cumulative and did not address the fundamental issues previously considered. The court held that allowing the recommencement of proceedings would not be in the interests of justice, given Budd's history of vexatious litigation. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and Budd was denied leave to re-commence her proceedings.

Orders