Barkla v Bush - [2015] WADC 46

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: BARKLA -v- BUSH [2015] WADC 46

CORAM: LEVY DCJ

HEARD: 22 APRIL 2015

DELIVERED : 1 MAY 2015

FILE NO/S: CIVO 29 of 2015

BETWEEN: GEOFF BARKLA
Plaintiff
AND
REGISTRAR LINDA BUSH
Defendant

Catchwords:

Proposed action against registrar of Supreme Court - Originating summons - Commencement of proceedings in District Court - Judicial immunity from suit - Vexatious applications and abuse of process

Legislation:

District Court (Fees) Regulations 2002 reg 7(1d)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 O 4 r 1

Result:

Originating summons struck out

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: In person
Defendant: No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Not applicable
Defendant: Not applicable

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

Barkla v Allianz Australia & Anor [2015] HCASL 40
Barkla v Allianz Australia & G4S Custodial Services [2014] WASCA 192
Barkla v Allianz Insurance & G4S Custodial Services [No 2] [2014] WASCA 222
Ninan v All Registrars of the Supreme Court & Court of Appeal [2015] WASC 99
Re Newnes; Ex parte Barkla [2014] WASC 487

LEVY DCJ: Mr Geoff Barkla (the applicant) filed an originating summons in this court seeking damages ('for non-economic loss of $250,000 (Plus)') against Registrar Linda Bush (the respondent), who is a registrar of the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Western Australia (the Court of Appeal).
The action in this court is said to arise in circumstances where the respondent, the learned registrar, refused to accept documents for filing in an appeal that was then before the Court of Appeal, namely the matter of Barkla v Allianz Australia & G4S Custodial Services [2014] WASCA 192 (the appeal proceedings). The wording of the applicant's originating summons includes claims that:
1.The Respondent caused Tort of Defamation by Default
2.The Respondent caused Defamation of Character by Default
3.The Respondent caused Libel of Defamation
4.Obstruction of Justice
5.Abuse of Public Office
6.The Respondent caused Harm to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's case in CACV 109 of 2014 due to the above points and the Fact the Respondent Denied the Plaintiff his right to refer a Legal issue to the Court of Appeal, pursuant to the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 rule 67 – Referring a Legal issue to the Court of Appeal.
On 22 April 2015 the applicant appeared at a special appointment in relation to the originating summons. In addition, an application was brought by the applicant to have his filing fees remitted.
There was no appearance by the respondent. This was not surprising since the applicant had not served any papers on the respondent.
In advance of the special appointment the applicant provided to the court via email a document entitled 'AFFIDAVIT VERIFYING LIST OF DOCUMENTS' dated 16 October 2014 attaching various annexures (A ‑ D). Although the document is called an affidavit verifying a list of documents, it is no such document. The document sets out six separate paragraphs which include what are referenced to be two questions of law.
In addition…

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 Barkla v Bush

Details

AGLC: Barkla v Bush [2015] WADC 46
Case: [2015] WADC 46
Decision Date: 1 MAY 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Barkla v Bush, the plaintiff, Barkla, sought to commence proceedings against the defendant, Bush, the Registrar of the Supreme Court. The plaintiff's action was initiated by an originating summons, aiming to hold the Registrar liable for alleged misconduct in the registration of certain documents. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Registrar could be held personally liable for actions taken in the course of their official duties. The court had to consider the principle of judicial immunity, which typically shields judicial officers from personal liability for actions taken within the scope of their judicial functions. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the plaintiff's action amounted to a vexatious or an abuse of the court process, given the plaintiff's history of similar litigation.

The court found that the Registrar was protected by judicial immunity from the claims made by Barkla. The court held that the Registrar's actions were taken in the course of their official duties and therefore were protected under judicial immunity. The court further determined that the plaintiff's action was vexatious, as it was part of a pattern of repetitive litigation against the Registrar and other parties. Consequently, the court dismissed the originating summons, finding it to be an abuse of the court's process.

The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the application. This included the costs incurred by the Registrar in defending the vexatious claim, thereby reinforcing the protection of judicial officers from such unfounded litigation.

Orders