Legal Research
Cases
Attorney General v Rouvinetis

Attorney General v Rouvinetis

Case [2012] NSWSC 328 12 June 2012

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Attorney General v Rouvinetis [2012] NSWSC 328
Hearing dates: 10 June 2011
Decision date: 12 June 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Adams J
Decision:
Orders made pursuant to s 8(7) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 -
1.The defendant is prohibited from instituting proceedings in any tribunal or court in New South Wales without leave of this Court.
2.All of the proceedings in New South Wales already instituted by the defendant, with the exception of an appeal, if any, from the decision in Rouvinetis v Knoll [2011] NSWSC 1352 are stayed.

Catchwords: VEXATIOUS LITIGANT - no question of principle.
Legislation Cited: Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008
Crimes Act 1900
Public Sector Management Act 1988
Freedom of Information Act 1989
Residential Tenancies Act 1987
Housing Act 2001
Fair Trading Act 1987
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
Residential Tenancies Act 1987
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Residential Tenancies Amendment (Social Housing) Act 2005
Criminal Proceeding Act 1986
Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Attorney General of NSW v Wilson [2010] NSWSC 1008
Attorney General in and for the State of NSW v Gargan [2010] NSWSC 1192
Rouvinetis v Department of Housing Commission of NSW (Supreme Court of NSW, Dunford J, 17 July 1996, unreported)
Rouvinetis v Department of Housing Commission of New South Wales (Supreme Court of NSW, Barr J, 16 June 1997, unreported)
Rouvinetis v Department of Housing Commission of New South Wales [1998] NSWCA 197
Rouvinetis v Department of Housing Commission of New South Wales [2000] 12497
Rouvinetis v Department of Housing [2001] NSWRT 99
Evangelos Rouvinetis v Director General, Department of Housing [2001] NSWADT 155
Rouvinetis v NSW Land & Housing Corporation [2001] NSWRT 317
Evangelos Rouvinetis v Residential Tribunal & Anor [2002] NSWSC 1007
Rouvinetis v Corporation of Land and Housing [2006] NSWCTTT 710
Rouvinetis v Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal [2007] NSWSC 391
Rouvinetis v NSW Corporation of Land and Housing [2007] NSWCTTT 401
Rouvinetis v Varady [2009] NSWSC 109
Rouvinetis v Knoll [2009] NSWSC 1212
Grant v Rouvinetis [2001] NSWSC 667
Grant v Rouvinetis [2001] NSWSC 513
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Attorney General (Plaintiff)
Evangelos Rouvinetis (Defendant)
Representation: S Callan SC (Plaintiff)
Evangelos Rouvinetis (In Person)

File Number(s): 2011/29016

Judgment

Introduction

The Attorney General of New South Wales seeks orders pursuant to s 8 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 in relation to the defendant, Evangelos Rouvinetis. The orders sought are that all proceedings instituted by the defendant, excluding those proceedings in Evangelos v David Knoll & 22 Ors 15679 of 2008, prior to the date of the order be stayed (vide s 8(7)(a)) and that the defendant be prohibited from instituting new proceedings without the leave of the Court (vide s 8(7)(a)).

The plaintiff has standing under s 8(4)(a) of the Act to bring the application despite being a stranger to the proceedings relied upon as grounding of the issued vexatious proceedings order.

The application has been instigated by…

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 Rouvinetis

Details

AGLC: Attorney General v Rouvinetis [2012] NSWSC 328
Case: [2012] NSWSC 328
Decision Date: 12 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was between the Attorney General and Mr. Rouvinetis, a self-represented litigant, concerning a declaration of vexatious litigious conduct. Mr. Rouvinetis had previously brought numerous legal actions against various entities and individuals, leading to the current application by the Attorney General seeking a declaration that his conduct was vexatious. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issue for the court to decide was whether Mr. Rouvinetis's conduct constituted vexatious litigation under the provisions of the Civil Proceedings (Vexatious Litigation) Act 2005. The court had to consider the nature and extent of Mr. Rouvinetis's litigation activities, the impact of his actions on the judicial system, and whether his actions were made without a genuine prospect of success or were pursued for an ulterior purpose.

The court found that Mr. Rouvinetis's extensive history of legal proceedings, often marked by a lack of merit and a disregard for legal principles, warranted the declaration sought by the Attorney General. The court noted that Mr. Rouvinetis had engaged in numerous actions against a wide range of defendants, often without proper legal grounds or substantial evidence. The court held that his conduct was indeed vexatious, imposing a significant burden on the judicial system and potentially deterring individuals and entities from pursuing legitimate legal remedies. The court's decision was based on the clear pattern of behavior that demonstrated a disregard for the proper use of legal processes. Consequently, the court made the declaration that Mr. Rouvinetis's conduct was vexatious as sought by the Attorney General.

Orders