Attorney-General (SA) v McDonald

In the case of Attorney-General (SA) v McDonald, the Attorney-General sought a declaration that Mr and Mrs McDonald were vexatious litigants under the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA). The case involved the McDonalds' complaints about their treatment as teachers and their subsequent claims for workers' compensation. The matter was first heard by Judge Withers, who dismissed the McDonalds' application for judicial review, finding no reasonable basis for their complaints. The McDonalds appealed this decision to Nicholson J, who also dismissed the appeal. The Attorney-General then applied to the Supreme Court for a declaration that the McDonalds were vexatious litigants, and that they be prohibited from instituting further proceedings without permission.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the McDonalds' proceedings met the threshold for being considered vexatious under s 39(5)(b) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA). The court had to consider whether the McDonalds had persistently instituted proceedings that had no reasonable basis or were otherwise frivolous or without merit. The court considered the McDonalds' previous applications for judicial review and the appeal against the decision of Hannon DP, as well as the underlying claims for workers' compensation and their related complaints.

The court found that the McDonalds had persistently instituted proceedings that had no reasonable basis. It noted that both Judge Withers and Nicholson J had found that the McDonalds' applications for judicial review had no prospects of success. The court also noted that the McDonalds' underlying claims for workers' compensation were not relevant to the issue of whether they were vexatious litigants. The court held that the McDonalds had instituted proceedings that were vexatious within the meaning of the Act, and that the discretion prescribed by the Act should be exercised to make orders prohibiting them from instituting further proceedings without permission.

The court made a declaration that each of Mr and Mrs McDonald was a vexatious litigant and made orders pursuant to s 39(1)(a) and (b) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA). The orders prohibit the McDonalds from instituting further proceedings in a prescribed court without permission of the Supreme Court, and stay any proceedings already instituted by them. The orders do not prohibit the filing of a notice of appeal against the declaration and orders.