Bar-Mordecai v The Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales (No 2)

Bar-Mordecai v The Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales (No 2) involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Bar-Mordecai, and the defendant, the Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Bar-Mordecai, sought leave to institute proceedings against the defendant, the Attorney-General, after having been issued with summonses to amend defences in upcoming motions for summary judgment seeking possession against him. The plaintiff's applications to amend were refused, and he impliedly sought to withdraw admissions made at the first instance. The plaintiff also challenged the judgment on earlier amendment applications, and an appeal against the earlier judgment was also refused. The plaintiff argued that the applications to amend were an abuse of process, instituted without reasonable ground, and for a wrongful purpose.

The legal issues in this case were whether the applications to amend were vexatious and an abuse of process, and whether they were instituted without reasonable ground or for a wrongful purpose. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff's applications to amend were an abuse of process, instituted without reasonable ground, or for a wrongful purpose, and whether they amounted to a vexatious proceeding under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW). The court had to consider the plaintiff's previous applications to amend, the plaintiff's implied request to withdraw admissions made at the first instance, and the plaintiff's challenge to the judgment on earlier amendment applications.

The court held that the plaintiff's applications to amend were vexatious and an abuse of process, instituted without reasonable ground or for a wrongful purpose. The court found that the plaintiff's applications to amend were an abuse of process, instituted without reasonable ground, and for a wrongful purpose, as they amounted to a vexatious proceeding under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW). The court also found that the plaintiff's implied request to withdraw admissions made at the first instance and his challenge to the judgment on earlier amendment applications were an abuse of process, instituted without reasonable ground, and for a wrongful purpose. The court held that the plaintiff's applications to amend were an abuse of process, instituted without reasonable ground, and for a wrongful purpose, and refused leave to institute proceedings.

The court made orders that the plaintiff's applications to amend were vexatious and an abuse of process, instituted without reasonable ground or for a wrongful purpose. The court also ordered that the plaintiff's implied request to withdraw admissions made at the first instance and his challenge to the judgment on earlier amendment applications were an abuse of process, instituted without reasonable ground, and for a wrongful purpose. The court further ordered that the plaintiff's applications to amend were a vexatious proceeding under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW), and refused leave to institute proceedings.