Legal Research
Cases
Attorney General v Shaw

Attorney General v Shaw

Case [2004] WASC 280 23 December 2004

Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ATTORNEY GENERAL & ANOR -v- SHAW [2004] WASC 280

Link to Appeal :

[2005] WASC 149

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2004] WASC 280
Case No:	CIV:2264/2004	Heard:	5 NOVEMBER 2004
Coram:	COMMISSIONER BRADDOCK SC	Delivered:	23/12/04
No of pages:	29	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave granted to second applicant, Order staying current proceedings including pending appeal, Order prohibiting institution of any further proceedings
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	ATTORNEY GENERAL COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS BRIAN WILLIAM SHAW
Catchwords:	Vexatious litigant Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 Leave to Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) to bring proceedings Extent of orders appropriate
Legislation:	Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002
Case References:	Attorney General v Hunter [2002] WASC 189 Attorney General v Keating [2000] WASC 93 Attorney General v Michael [1999] WASCA 181 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Bride & Ors [2004] WASC 177 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Ridout Nominees & Ors [2000] WASC 37 Granich Partners v Yap [2003] WASC 206 In re Boaler [1915] 1 KB 21 R v Fingleton (2003) QCA 266 R v Lord Chancellor; ex parte John Witham [1997] EWHC Admin 237 Re Attorney General (Commonwealth); ex parte Skyring (1996) 70 ALJR 321 Ridout Nominees Pty Ltd & Ors v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2003] WASC 158 Shaw & Ors v The State of Western Australia, Attorney General Mr Jim McGinty & Anor [2004] WASC 144 Attorney-General (NSW) v Bhattacharya [2003] NSWSC 1150 Attorney-General (NSW) v Wentworth (1998) 14 NSWLR 481 Re Shaw & Anor [2001] 4 VR 103

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : ATTORNEY GENERAL & ANOR -v- SHAW [2004] WASC 280 CORAM : COMMISSIONER BRADDOCK SC HEARD : 5 NOVEMBER 2004 DELIVERED : 23 DECEMBER 2004 FILE NO/S : CIV 2264 of 2004 MATTER : Section 4 of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 BETWEEN : ATTORNEY GENERAL

First Applicant

COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

Second Applicant

AND

BRIAN WILLIAM SHAW

Respondent

Catchwords:

Vexatious litigant - Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 - Leave to Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) to bring proceedings - Extent of orders appropriate

Legislation:

Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002

(Page 2)

Result:

Leave granted to second applicant

Order staying current proceedings including pending appeal
Order prohibiting institution of any further proceedings

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Applicant : Mr S M Murphy

Second Applicant : Mr D W L Renton

Respondent : In person

Solicitors:

First Applicant : State Solicitor

Second Applicant : Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent : In person

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

Attorney General v Hunter [2002] WASC 189
Attorney General v Keating [2000] WASC 93
Attorney General v Michael [1999] WASCA 181
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Bride & Ors [2004] WASC 177
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Ridout Nominees & Ors [2000] WASC 37
Granich Partners v Yap [2003] WASC 206
In re Boaler [1915] 1 KB 21
R v Fingleton (2003) QCA 266
R v Lord Chancellor; ex parte John Witham [1997]…

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 Shaw

Details

AGLC: Attorney General v Shaw [2004] WASC 280
Case: [2004] WASC 280
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were the Attorney General and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, who brought proceedings against Brian William Shaw under the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002. The applicants sought orders to stay any proceedings Shaw had instituted in Western Australia and prohibit him from instituting any further proceedings without leave from the Supreme Court, an inferior court or tribunal. The legal issues in this case were whether Shaw had instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings and whether the applicants were entitled to the orders they sought under the Act. The court found that Shaw had instituted vexatious proceedings by bringing numerous complaints and private prosecutions without reasonable grounds and in an abusive manner. The court also found that Shaw was likely to institute further vexatious proceedings based on his pattern of litigation and materials filed in support of the application. The court concluded that the orders sought by the applicants were justified to prevent further abuse of the court process by Shaw. The court made orders granting leave to the Commonwealth Director of Publicigations to bring the application, staying any proceedings Shaw had instituted and prohibiting him from instituting any further proceedings without leave. The orders were intended to restrain Shaw from pursuing his irrational conspiracy theories through the courts and to prevent further inconvenience, expense and embarrassment to those caught up in his litigation.

Orders