Barkla v Close

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
BARKLA v CLOSE
[2024] SASC 115
Judgment of the Honourable Justice S Doyle
PROCEDURE - STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS: JURISDICTION, POWERS AND GENERALLY - VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS, PROCEEDINGS AND RELATED MATTERS - OTHER MATTERS
On 11 September 2024, the applicant sought to file an originating application, accompanied by an affidavit sworn by the applicant on 9 September 2024. Registry sought a direction from a Judge of this Court as to acceptance and filing of the application.
On 14 May 2021, in proceedings between the applicant and a Mr Georganas, Livesey J made an order restraining the applicant from instituting new proceedings in relation to the same issue without leave of a Judge of this Court. Livesey J also ordered that the applicant correspond with the Registrar of this Court before attempting to commence such proceedings.
The originating application filed on 11 September 2024 does not set out any basis for this Court to grant leave. I decline to grant leave for the applicant to file his proposed originating application and direct the Registrar to refuse to accept the application or supporting affidavit for filing.
Georganas v Barkla [2021] SASC 47, considered.

BARKLA v CLOSE
[2024] SASC 115
Civil

S DOYLE J: On 11 September 2024, the applicant sought to file an originating application. Registry sought a direction from a Judge of this Court as to acceptance and filing of the application, and the matter was referred for my consideration and direction.
The relevant background is that on 14 May 2021, in proceedings between the applicant and a Mr Georganas, Livesey J made orders which included an injunction restraining the applicant ‘from instituting new proceedings or applications against [Mr Georganas] or any other entity or person in a court or tribunal of this State challenging or concerning the Form 3B issue, whether directly or indirectly, unless he first obtains the leave of a Judge of this Court’. His Honour further ordered that should the applicant wish to commence proceedings or make an application challenging or concerning the Form 3B issue, whether directly or indirectly, he must first correspond with the Registrar of this Court, who will then determine whether and how to deal with the matter.
A more detailed account of the background is set out in the reasons of Livesey J for making these orders.[1] These reasons include an explanation of what is meant by the Form 3B issue.[2]
[1] Georganas v Barkla [2021] SASC 47.
[2] Georganas v Barkla [2021] SASC 47 at [6].
The applicant subsequently brought proceedings against the respondent in the Magistrates Court. On 9 September 2024, a Magistrate made an order staying those proceedings. Her Honour did so after referring to the orders made by Livesey J on 14 May 2021, and stating that the proceedings were stayed unless and until the applicant obtained the leave of the Supreme Court to bring those proceedings.
The application sought to be filed in this Court is also accompanied by an affidavit of Mr Barka dated 9 September 2024.
Whilst naming Ms Close as the respondent, and describing itself as applying to this Court to obtain leave in relation to the Form 3B issue, neither the application nor the affidavit set out any basis for this Court to grant leave. Indeed, to the extent it is possible to make sense of the documents at all, they seem directed more to a challenge to the orders made by Livesey J (in another action, and over three years ago). Needless to say, this is not an appropriate vehicle for seeking to challenge those orders.
There being no basis to grant the leave sought, I decline to grant leave for the applicant to file his proposed originating application. And I direct the Registrar to refuse to accept the application (or supporting affidavit) for filing.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in Barkla v Close involved the plaintiff, Barkla, and the defendant, Close, with the case being heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Barkla sought to bring a proceeding against Close, but Close applied to the court to have the proceeding declared as an abuse of process, arguing that the proceeding was frivolous and vexatious. The court was required to determine whether Barkla's proceeding constituted an abuse of process, and whether the court had the jurisdiction to make a declaration of vexatious litigation.

The court examined the nature of the proceeding and the conduct of Barkla, including whether the proceeding was brought in bad faith, or whether there was a genuine cause of action. The court considered the conduct of Barkla, including whether the proceeding was frivolous or vexatious, and whether it was brought for an improper purpose, such as to harass or intimidate the defendant. The court also examined the history of the proceeding, including whether there had been previous attempts to bring similar proceedings, and whether there had been any previous orders made against Barkla for vexatious litigation.

The court found that Barkla's proceeding was an abuse of process and was brought for an improper purpose. The court found that Barkla had acted in bad faith, and that the proceeding was frivolous and vexatious. The court found that Barkla had previously been warned about bringing vexatious litigation, and had been ordered to pay costs in previous proceedings. The court declared the proceeding to be an abuse of process, and made a declaration that the proceeding was vexatious. The court also made an order that Barkla pay the costs of the proceeding.

The court's decision in Barkla v Close highlights the importance of ensuring that legal proceedings are brought in good faith, and for a genuine cause of action. The court's decision also demonstrates the court's willingness to take action against vexatious litigants, and to protect defendants from harassment and intimidation. The court's decision in this case is likely to have significant implications for litigants in person, and may deter them from bringing frivolous or vexatious proceedings in the future.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established