Legal Research
Cases
Attorney General v Michael

Attorney General v Michael

Case [2005] WASC 203 16 September 2005

Administrative Law

Vexatious Proceedings

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ATTORNEY GENERAL -v- MICHAEL & ANOR [2005] WASC 203

Link to Appeal :

[2006] WASCA 123

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2005] WASC 203
Case No:	CIV:1374/2003	Heard:	26 & 30 MARCH 2004, 9-11 FEBRUARY 2005
Coram:	LE MIERE J	Delivered:	16/09/05
No of pages:	41	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application successful in part
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	ATTORNEY GENERAL SHAWKY SHAFEEK MICHAEL JOYCE MARY MICHAEL
Catchwords:	Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA) ("the Act") Application for order under s 4 of the Act "Proceedings" "Vexatious proceedings" Statutory requirements Whether respondents have or are likely to institute or conduct vexatious proceedings Discretion to make the orders sought Restriction upon the rights of the individual Regard to be had to purpose of the Act
Legislation:	Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 4 Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA), s 3, s 4, s 6 Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 1930 (WA), s 3
Case References:	Attorney General v Michael & Anor [1999] WASCA 181 Crown Solicitor for the State of Western Australia v Michael & Michael, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980425; 30 July 1998 Michael v The Crown Solicitor [2004] WASCA 45 Attorney General (NSW) v Bhattacharya [2003] NSWSC 1150 Attorney General for the State of Victoria v Kay [1999] VSC 30 Attorney General v Hunter [2002] WASC 189 Attorney General v Keating [2000] WASC 93 Attorney General v Wentworth (1988) 14 NSWLR 481 Attorney General, Re; Ex parte Skyring (1996) 135 ALR 29 Granich Partners v Yap [2003] WASC 206

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : ATTORNEY GENERAL -v- MICHAEL & ANOR [2005] WASC 203 CORAM : LE MIERE J HEARD : 26 & 30 MARCH 2004, 9-11 FEBRUARY 2005 DELIVERED : 16 SEPTEMBER 2005 FILE NO/S : CIV 1374 of 2003 BETWEEN : ATTORNEY GENERAL

Applicant

AND

SHAWKY SHAFEEK MICHAEL

First Respondent

JOYCE MARY MICHAEL

Second Respondent

Catchwords:

Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA) ("the Act") - Application for order under s 4 of the Act - "Proceedings" - "Vexatious proceedings" - Statutory requirements - Whether respondents have or are likely to institute or conduct vexatious proceedings - Discretion to make the orders sought - Restriction upon the rights of the individual - Regard to be had to purpose of the Act

Legislation:

Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 4

Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA), s 3, s 4, s 6
Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 1930 (WA), s 3

(Page 2)

Result:

Application successful in part

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr G T W Tannin SC & Ms L A Eddy

First Respondent : In person

Second Respondent : In person

Solicitors:

Applicant : State Solicitor

First Respondent : In person

Second Respondent : In person

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

Attorney General v Michael & Anor [1999] WASCA 181
Crown Solicitor for the State of Western Australia v Michael & Michael, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980425; 30 July 1998
Michael v…

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 Michael

Details

AGLC: Attorney General v Michael [2005] WASC 203
Case: [2005] WASC 203
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an application by the Attorney General under the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA) for orders to restrict the ability of Dr Shawky Shafiek Michael and his wife, Mrs Joyce Mary Michael, to institute or conduct proceedings in Western Australian courts. The Attorney General relied on a history of vexatious litigation by Dr Michael, including private prosecutions, civil actions, and restraining order applications. The court found that Dr Michael had instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings and was likely to continue doing so, warranting the restriction of his litigation rights. The court exercised its discretion to make orders under the Act, including prohibiting Dr Michael from instituting proceedings without leave and staying certain existing proceedings. Mrs Michael was found not to have instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings, and no orders were made against her. The Full Court had previously dismissed Dr Michael's appeal against orders made by E M Heenan J, and Dr Michael's subsequent application for special leave to appeal to the High Court was denied.

Orders