Attorney General for Western Australia v Barkla - [2016] WASC 298

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- BARKLA [2016] WASC 298

CORAM: LE MIERE J

HEARD: 28 JULY 2016

DELIVERED : 21 SEPTEMBER 2016

FILE NO/S: CIV 1522 of 2016

MATTER :An Application under the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act

BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Plaintiff
AND
GEOFF BARKLA
Defendant

Catchwords:

Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA) - Whether person has instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings - Whether appropriate case to exercise discretion and make order - Discretion should be exercised - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 30 r 2
Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), r 43
Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA), s 3, s 4, s 6
Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), s 57A, s 229, s 231

Result:

Application successful

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Ms K A T Pedersen
Defendant: In person

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: State Solicitor for Western Australia
Defendant: In person

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Barkla v Allianz Australia [2015] WASCA 210
Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd & G4S Custodial Services [2014] WASCA 192
Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2013] WADC 23
Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2013] WADC 90
Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2013] WASCA 240
Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2014] WADC 113
Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2014] WADC 23
Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2014] WADC 36
Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [No 2] [2014] WASCA 222
Barkla v Allianz Insurance [2013] WASCA 21
Barkla v Bush [2015] WADC 46
Barkla v Civitella [2016] WADC 3
Barkla v Civitella [2016] WASCA 71
Barkla v Civitella [No 2] [2016] WASCA 111
Barkla v G4S Australia Holdings (Unreported, A387, 20 January 2012)
Barkla v G4S Custodial Services [No 2] [2012] WADC 78; (2012) 80 SR (WA) 91
Barkla v G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd [2014] WADC 36
Barkla v Justice David Wallace Newnes [2015] WASCA 120
Barkla v WorkCover WA [2014] WADC 159
Barkla v WorkCover Western Australia [2014] WASCA 40
Geoff Barkla v Allianz Australia [2015] HCASL 40
Geoff Barkla v Registrar Linda Joyce Bush [2015] HCASL 181
Re Registrar Linda Bush, ex parte Barkla [2014] WASC 488
Re The Hon Justice Newnes, Ex Parte Barkla [2014] WASC 487
LE MIERE J:

Summary

These proceedings were instituted by the Attorney General for Western Australia, the Honourable Michael Mischin MLC (the applicant) against Geoff Barkla (the Respondent). On 1 April 2016 the applicant filed an originating motion under s 4 of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA) (the Act) for orders that:
1.Mr Geoff Barkla is prohibited from instituting any proceedings, as defined in the Act, unless he first obtains the leave of a Court or Tribunal, as the case requires, under section 6 of the Act; or
2.In the alternative, such other order under the Act as the Court considers to be appropriate; and
3.Costs…

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 Attorney General for Western Australia v Barkla 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: [2016] WASC 298
Decision Date: 21 SEPTEMBER 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the Attorney General for Western Australia, who sought an order under the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA) against Barkla. The dispute centred on whether Barkla had instituted or conducted proceedings that were vexatious. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The court was required to determine if the statutory criteria for vexatious proceedings were met and whether it was appropriate to exercise its discretion to make an order under the Act. The court had to consider the nature and conduct of the proceedings, the conduct of Barkla as a party, and the broader implications of making such an order.

The court examined the conduct of Barkla, including the manner in which the proceedings were conducted, the merits of the case, and the reasons behind the initiation of the litigation. It considered whether the proceedings were brought without any reasonable prospect of success, whether they were pursued for an improper purpose, and whether the conduct of Barkla demonstrated a disregard for the court's process. The court also weighed the public interest in preventing the misuse of legal processes against the potential chilling effect such orders could have on the right to access the courts.

The court concluded that the proceedings instituted by Barkla were indeed vexatious, as they were without merit and were pursued for an improper purpose. The court found that the discretionary factors supported the exercise of the court's power to make an order. It was appropriate to make an order under the Act to prevent Barkla from continuing with the litigation and to protect the court's resources and the rights of other parties. The court exercised its discretion to make an order prohibiting Barkla from instituting or continuing proceedings against the Attorney General without the leave of the court.

The final orders of the court included a prohibition on Barkla from instituting or continuing any proceedings against the Attorney General without obtaining the prior leave of the court. This order was intended to prevent further vexatious litigation and to ensure that court resources were not wasted on proceedings lacking in merit. The court emphasised that the exercise of its discretion was based on the specific facts of this case and that each case would turn on its own circumstances.

Orders