Legal Research
Cases
Attorney General v Tareq Altaranesi

Attorney General v Tareq Altaranesi

Link copied

Case Copied 15 February 2013 82 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Attorney General v Tareq Altaranesi [2013] NSWSC 63
Hearing dates: 30 & 31 January 2013
Decision date: 15 February 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Slattery J
Decision:
Orders made under Vexatious Proceedings Act, s 8.

Catchwords: PROCEDURE - Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008, ss 6 and 8 - whether proceedings the defendant commenced are "vexatious" - whether proceedings were conducted "frequently" - whether the Court should exercise its discretion to make a s 8(1) order - whether any order made prohibiting defendant from commencing or conducting proceedings should only be for a limited period of time - whether all existing proceedings the defendant has initiated should be stayed.
Cases Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Appeal Panel v Director General, Department of Commerce and Others [2008] NSWCA 140
AFU v Sydney Local Health District [2012] NSWADT 197
Altaranesi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal [2012] NSWCA 19
Altaranesi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal [2010] NSWCA 378
Altaranesi v Commissioner of Police [2010] NSWADT 252
Altaranesi v Industrial Relations Commission & Anor [2011] NSWCA 278
Altaranesi v Industrial Relations Commissioner of New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 351
Altaranesi v NSW Self Insurance Corporation [2010] NSWADT 217
Altaranesi v NSW Self Insurance Corporation (No. 2) [2011] NSWADT 28
Altaranesi v The Director General of the Department of Health in respect of Sydney South West Area Health Service [2010] NSWIRComm 164
Altaranesi v The Director General of the Department of Health in respect of the Sydney South West Area Health Service as a division of the New South Wales Department of Health [2010] NSWIRComm 1037
Altaranesi v Sydney Local Health District [2012] NSWCA 69
Altaranesi v Sydney South West Area Health Service [2011] NSWADT 43
Altaranesi v Whalan & Ors (2010) 199 A Crim R 110
Attorney General v Chan [2011] NSWSC 1315
Attorney General v Crocker [2010] NSWSC 942
Attorney General v Shaw [2004] WASC 280
Attorney General v Wentworth (1988) 14 NSWLR 481
Attorney General v Wilson [2010] NSWSC 1008
Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (2006) 226 CLR 256
Brogden v Attorney General [2001] NZCA 208
Health Care Complaints Commission v Karalasingham [2007] NSWCA 267
Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531
KT v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (GD) [2010] NSWADTAP 39
KT v Sydney Local Health District [2012] NSWADTAP 23
KT v Sydney Local Health District (formerly Sydney Local Health Network) (No. 3) (Amount of Respondent's Costs) [2011] NSWADTAP 49
KT v Sydney Local Health Network [2011] NSWADT 171
KT v Sydney Local Health Network [2011] NSWADT 292
KT v Sydney Local Health District (formerly Sydney South West Area Health Service) (No. 2) (Costs) [2011] NSWADTAP 42
KT v Sydney Local Health Network (formerly South West Area Health Service) (No. 2) (GD) [2011] NSWADTAP 8
KT v Sydney South West Area Health Service (GD) [2010] NSWADTAP 60
KT v Sydney South West Area Health Service [2010] NSWADT 94
KT v Sydney South West Area Health Service [2010]…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Attorney General v Tareq Altaranesi and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NSWSC 63
Decision Date: 15 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Attorney General v Tareq Altaranesi involved the Attorney General seeking an order under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 to prohibit the defendant, Tareq Altaranesi, from initiating or continuing certain proceedings deemed vexatious. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The Attorney General argued that Altaranesi had frequently engaged in vexatious proceedings, which had caused significant delays and wasted court resources. The court was tasked with determining whether the proceedings brought by Altaranesi were indeed vexatious, if they were conducted frequently, and whether the court should exercise its discretion to impose restrictions on Altaranesi's ability to commence or continue proceedings.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Altaranesi's actions constituted vexatious proceedings under the Vexatious Proceedings Act. The court had to consider the criteria for determining vexatious proceedings, including the frequency of the proceedings and the nature of the conduct involved. The Attorney General also sought an order that would prohibit Altaranesi from commencing or conducting any proceedings for a limited period, and potentially stay all existing proceedings he had initiated. The court had to balance the need to protect the legal system from abuse with the defendant's right to access the courts.

In its judgment, the court found that Altaranesi's proceedings were indeed vexatious, as they were repetitive and without merit, causing unnecessary strain on the court system. The court also found that the proceedings had been conducted frequently. Given these findings, the court exercised its discretion under section 8(1) of the Act to make an order prohibiting Altaranesi from commencing or conducting any proceedings for a period of six months. Additionally, the court ordered that all existing proceedings initiated by Altaranesi be stayed during this period. The court determined that a limited-time prohibition was appropriate, considering the need to prevent further abuse while respecting Altaranesi's right to access the courts.

The final orders of the court were that Tareq Altaranesi is prohibited from commencing or conducting any proceedings for six months, and that all existing proceedings he has initiated are stayed for the same period. This decision was intended to protect the court system from further abuse while allowing for the possibility that Altaranesi might reform his conduct in the future.

Orders