Legal Research
Cases
Batterham v Goldberg

Batterham v Goldberg

Case [2023] NSWSC 721 27 June 2023

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Batterham v Goldberg [2023] NSWSC 721
Hearing dates: 22 June 2023
Date of orders: 22 June 2023
Decision date: 27 June 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:
Proceedings dismissed.
For ancillary orders refer to par [36] of this judgment

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – summary disposal – application for claim to be summarily dismissed – frivolous and vexatious proceedings – no reasonable cause of action disclosed – abuse of process – attempt to re-agitate issues comprehensively and conclusively determined in the Federal Court – where those proceedings in the Federal Court were time-barred, barred as a result of res judicata and issue estoppel, disclosed no cause of action and where alleged loss and damage not caused by respondents – proceedings dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (2006) 226 CLR 256; [2006] HCA 27
Batterham v Clayton Utz Partnership [2022] FCA 360
Batterham v Clayton Utz Partnership [2022] FCA 1435
Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464; [1939] HCA 23
Castillon v P & O Ports Ltd [2008] 2 Qd R 219; [2007] QCA 364;
Chandrasekaran v Commonwealth of Australia [2021] NSWSC 1149
Coffey v Secretary, Department of Social Security (1999) 86 FCR 434; [1999] FCA 375
Crocker v Toys ‘R’ Us (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2015] FCA 728
Kanakaridis v Westpac Banking Corporation [2015] FCA 1146
O’Brien v Bank of Western Australia Ltd [2013] NSWCA 71
Pi v Zhou [2016] NSWCA 24
Pickering v Centrelink [2008] FCA 561
Rana v Commonwealth [2013] FCA 189
Spalla v St George Motor Finance Ltd (No 6) [2004] FCA 1699
State Bank of New South Wales Ltd v Stenhouse Ltd (1997) Aust Torts Reports 81-423

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: James Batterham (Plaintiff) (Self represented)
Terrance Goldberg (First Defendant)
Armando Gardiman (Second Defendant)
Thady Blundell (Third Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Smorchevsky (Defendants)
Solicitors:
Moray & Agnew Lawyers (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2023/00036445
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

On 22 June 2023 I made an order dismissing the plaintiff’s proceedings under r 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”) on the basis that the proceedings are frivolous and vexatious, disclose no reasonable cause of action, and are an abuse of process.
These are my reasons for making that order.

Background

The plaintiff is an aggrieved litigant, apparently unable to move past the unfavourable outcomes he has sustained in proceedings in the Industrial Relations Commission of NSW, this Court, the Federal Court, the High Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court.
The plaintiff, in his Statement of Claim filed 19 January 2023 (and Amended Statement of Claim filed 22 February 2023) alleges that he was wrongly made bankrupt some years ago because of a judgment wrongly entered in the Local Court of NSW for unpaid legal costs claimed by Turner Freeman, to which, the plaintiff has asserted on numerous occasions, they were not…

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 Batterham v Goldberg

Details

AGLC: Batterham v Goldberg [2023] NSWSC 721
Case: [2023] NSWSC 721
Decision Date: 27 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Batterham initiated legal proceedings against Goldberg. The dispute arose from allegations that Goldberg had engaged in misconduct during a previous legal matter, which was comprehensively and conclusively determined in the Federal Court. Batterham sought to re-agitate these issues, which had been previously barred due to res judicata and issue estoppel, and time-bar. Goldberg applied for the claim to be summarily dismissed, asserting that the proceedings were frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court was required to determine whether the application for summary dismissal should be granted. This involved examining whether Batterham had disclosed a reasonable cause of action and whether the proceedings constituted an abuse of the court's process. The court considered whether the issues had been conclusively determined in the prior Federal Court proceedings, whether those proceedings were barred by res judicata and issue estoppel, and whether the alleged loss and damage were caused by Goldberg.

The court found that the claim was frivolous and vexatious, constituting an abuse of process. The issues Batterham sought to re-agitate had been comprehensively and conclusively determined in the Federal Court, and those proceedings were barred by res judicata and issue estoppel. Furthermore, the alleged loss and damage were not caused by Goldberg. The court concluded that there was no reasonable cause of action disclosed and that the proceedings were an abuse of process. Consequently, the court dismissed the claim, and no appeal was permitted without leave of the court.

The court ordered that the proceedings be dismissed with costs to be paid by Batterham. The court also noted that no appeal would be permitted without leave of the court, reinforcing the finality of the decision and the court's stance against the abuse of process.

Orders