Legal Research
Cases
Attorney General v Budd

Attorney General v Budd

Case [2013] NSWSC 155 19 April 2013

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Attorney General v Budd [2013] NSWSC 155
Hearing dates: 5 July 2012, 6 July 2012
Decision date: 19 April 2013
Before: Hall J
Decision:
(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
(2) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis.
(3) Defendant's application under the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 refused.

Catchwords:
PROCEDURE - application for vexatious proceedings order pursuant to s 8 Vexatious Proceedings Act - whether proceedings are vexatious - meaning of "vexatious" - whether proceedings were conducted frequently - meaning of "frequently"
SUPPRESSION ORDERS - application by defendant to suppress identity in judgment and orders made under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 - issue as to impact of publicity upon defendant's mental health - powers of the Court to make a suppression order under the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 not available to suppress judgment and orders under Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008, in particular having regard to the statutory scheme requiring public notification of any orders made under that Act
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010
Evidence Act 1995
Freedom of Information Act 1989
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008
Cases Cited: Attorney General in and for the State of NSW v Gargan [2010] NSWSC 1192
Attorney General of NSW v Wilson [2010] NSWSC 1008
Attorney General v Chan (2011) NSWSC 1315
Attorney General v Croker [2010] NSWSC 942
Budd v Department of Housing (Tenancy) [2004] NSWCTTT 622
Budd v Federal Privacy Commissioner [2005] FCA 1264
Budd v Federal Privacy Commissioner [2005] FCA 1478
Budd v Federal Privacy Commissioner [2006] FCA 1131
Budd v Federal Privacy Commissioner [2007] FCAFC 24
Budd v New South Wales Commissioner of Police [2006] NSWSC 1265
Budd v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2008] FCA 1540
Budd v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2009] FCA 345
Budd v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2008] AATA 137
Budd v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2009] FCA 961
Budd v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2009] FCA 1138
Budd v State of NSW [2006] NSWADT 14
Budd v State of NSW [2006] NSWSC 1266
Budd v State of NSW [2007] NSWADT 112
Budd v State of NSW [2007] NSWADT 88
Budd v State of NSW [2007] NSWADTAP 55
Budd v State of NSW [2008] NSWADT 217
Budd v State of NSW [2008] NSWADT 239
Budd v University of Sydney [2010] NSWADT 77
Budd v Victims Compensation Corporation Fund [2009] NSWDC 35
NZ v Commissioner of Police [2005] NSWADT 35
NZ v Commissioner of Police [2005] NSWADTAP 61
NZ v NSW…

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.

Continue reading Attorney General v Budd

Details

AGLC: Attorney General v Budd [2013] NSWSC 155
Case: [2013] NSWSC 155
Decision Date: 19 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Attorney General v Budd, the plaintiff sought a declaration that the proceedings brought by the defendant were vexatious, and for an order pursuant to the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (Vic). The defendant opposed the application, arguing that the proceedings were not vexatious, and further sought suppression orders in relation to the identity of the parties and the orders to be made by the court. The dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's proceedings were vexatious, and if so, whether suppression orders could be granted to prevent publication of the parties' identities and the orders of the court. The court was required to interpret the meaning of "vexatious" and "frequently" under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (Vic), and whether the power to make suppression orders under the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (Vic) could be exercised in relation to orders made under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (Vic).

The court found that the defendant's proceedings were vexatious, as they were repetitive and lacked any real prospect of success. The court held that the meaning of "vexatious" was not limited to proceedings that were frivolous or without merit, but also encompassed those that were brought for an improper purpose, such as harassment or oppression of the plaintiff. The court also found that the proceedings were conducted frequently, as they were brought on multiple occasions despite being struck out on previous occasions. The court held that "frequently" meant that the proceedings were brought on more than one occasion, and that the repetition of the proceedings was a factor in determining whether they were vexatious. The court further held that the power to make suppression orders under the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (Vic) could not be exercised in relation to orders made under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (Vic), as the statutory scheme required public notification of any orders made under that Act.

The court made a declaration that the defendant's proceedings were vexatious, and made an order pursuant to the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (Vic) prohibiting the defendant from bringing any further proceedings without the leave of the court. The court declined to make any suppression orders in relation to the identity of the parties or the orders of the court.

Orders