Bathis-Brown v Woods - [2015] NSWSC 1194

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Bathis-Brown v Woods [2015] NSWSC 1194
Hearing dates: 30 & 31 March 2015
Decision date: 25 August 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hall J
Decision:
(1) Pursuant to s 8(7)(a) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (“the Act”), the whole of proceedings no. 2014/63258, commenced by the defendant against the first plaintiff on 28 February 2014 in the Local Court at Wyong for an Apprehended Personal Domestic Violence Order, is stayed.

(2) Pursuant to s 8(7)(a) of the Act, the whole of proceedings no. 2014/63277, commenced by the defendant against the second plaintiff on 28 February 2014 in the Local Court at Wyong for an Apprehended Personal Domestic Violence, Order is stayed.

(3) Pursuant to s 8(7)(b) of the Act, the defendant is prohibited from commencing proceedings in New South Wales against either the first or second plaintiff in which orders in the nature of Apprehended Violence Orders are sought.
(4) Unless written application is made to my Associate within seven days for a different order, order the defendant to pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the proceedings.
Catchwords: PROCEDURE – Vexatious proceedings – Application made under s 8(a) Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 seeking orders staying two proceedings instituted by the defendant – Application for order prohibiting defendant from commencing proceedings in New South Wales under s 8(b) Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 – Meaning of vexatious proceedings – Whether defendant’s applications for Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders against the plaintiffs were vexatious – Evidence indicated applications were retaliatory to applications made by the first plaintiff – Defendant had failed to pursue and support applications with cogent and consistent evidence – Applications for Apprehended Violence Orders found to be vexatious – Orders made staying two sets of proceedings commenced against the plaintiffs – Order made prohibiting the defendant from commencing proceedings for Apprehended Violence Orders against the plaintiffs
Legislation Cited: Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld)
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Attorney General (NSW) v Wilson [2010] NSWSC 1008
Attorney General in and for the State of NSW v Gargan [2010] NSWSC 1192
Teoh v Hunters Hill Council (No 8) [2014] NSWCA 125
Viavattene v Attorney General (NSW) [2015] NSWCA 44
Texts Cited: Oxford English Dictionary, Online, March (2014), Oxford University Press
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Lauren Ann Bathis-Brown (First Plaintiff)
Kevin Bathis (Second Plaintiff)
David Woods (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
R Wilson SC; S Spadijer (Plaintiffs)
In person (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Brazel Moore Lawyers (Plaintiffs)
Self-Represented (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2014/136185

Judgment

Introduction

The plaintiffs commenced proceedings against the defendant by way of Summons filed 6 May 2014 seeking a number of orders under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) (“the Act”). Orders are sought pursuant to s 8(7)(a) of the Act staying two sets of proceedings commenced by the defendant against the plaintiffs in the Wyong Local Court on 28 February 2014 (Local Court proceedings 2014/63258 and 2014/63277), and an order is sought pursuant to s 8(7)(b) of the Act…

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 Bathis-Brown v Woods

Details

AGLC: Bathis-Brown v Woods [2015] NSWSC 1194
Case: [2015] NSWSC 1194
Decision Date: 25 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Bathis-Brown v Woods, the dispute involved two parties, the plaintiffs, Bathis-Brown, and the defendant, Woods. The plaintiffs sought to have two proceedings stayed, which the defendant had instituted against them. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiffs argued that the proceedings were vexatious and sought orders under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008.

The court was required to determine whether the defendant's applications for Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders against the plaintiffs were vexatious. The plaintiffs argued that the applications were retaliatory, given that the first plaintiff had previously made applications for similar orders against the defendant. The court needed to examine the evidence presented to determine whether the defendant's applications were made in bad faith or without a reasonable prospect of success. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the defendant had pursued and supported the applications with cogent and consistent evidence.

The court found that the defendant's applications for Apprehended Violence Orders against the plaintiffs were vexatious. The evidence indicated that the applications were retaliatory, and the defendant had failed to pursue and support the applications with cogent and consistent evidence. As a result, the court granted the plaintiffs' application to stay the two sets of proceedings and prohibited the defendant from commencing any further proceedings for Apprehended Violence Orders against the plaintiffs. The court's decision was based on the evidence presented and the principles outlined in the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008.

The final orders made by the court were to stay the two sets of proceedings commenced against the plaintiffs and to prohibit the defendant from commencing any further proceedings for Apprehended Violence Orders against the plaintiffs. The court found that the defendant's applications for Apprehended Violence Orders were vexatious and not pursued with reasonable prospects of success. The decision was based on the evidence presented and the principles outlined in the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008.

Orders