Attorney General v Keating

The case of Attorney General v Keating involved the Attorney General bringing an application for an injunction to restrain Keating from initiating further proceedings in the Federal Court without leave. The nature of the dispute was whether Keating qualified as a vexatious litigant, thereby warranting such an injunction. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The Attorney General contended that Keating's repeated and persistent litigation was causing unnecessary and disproportionate harm to the court system, necessitating a restraint order.

The court had to decide whether Keating's conduct met the threshold of being both vexatious and habitually persistent. This involved assessing the nature of the litigation, the frequency of the proceedings, and the impact on the judicial system. The court considered the definition of a vexatious litigant as one who engages in litigation that is unreasonable or oppressive to the other party, and the notion of 'habitually and persistently' was examined to determine if there was a pattern of such behaviour. The court weighed the balance between the right to access the courts and the need to protect the judicial process from unnecessary burden.

In its reasoning, the court found that Keating's conduct met the criteria for being deemed a vexatious litigant. The court determined that the litigation initiated by Keating was without merit, repetitive, and had caused significant inconvenience and expense to the court system. The court concluded that the public interest required the imposition of an injunction to prevent further proceedings without leave. The court issued an order restraining Keating from initiating further proceedings in the Federal Court without first obtaining leave from the court.