Brian William Shaw v Attorney-General for the State of Victoria

BRIAN WILLIAM SHAW
v
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF VICTORIA
[2013] HCASL 66
M114/2012

The applicant was declared to be a vexatious litigant on 17 May 2007[1]. In November 2011 he commenced proceedings seeking to have the declaration set aside. He procured the issue of a number of subpoenas in connection with that application. Ferguson J set the subpoenas aside as an abuse of process. On 10 August 2012 Forrest J refused to set aside the vexatious litigant declaration[2].
[1]Attorney-General for the State of Victoria v Shaw [2007] VSC 148.
[2]Attorney-General for the State of Victoria v Shaw [2012] VSC 334.
On 1 November 2012 the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Warren CJ and Bongiorno JA) dismissed an application for leave to appeal from the orders of Ferguson J setting aside the subpoenas. Warren CJ characterised the proposed grounds of appeal as "nonsensical" and "reflective of the very matters that led to his declaration as a vexatious litigant in the first place".
The applicant seeks special leave to appeal. Nothing in the incoherent material filed in support of the application calls into question the correctness of the order below.
The application is dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M. Bell
8 May 2013 S.J. Gageler

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brian William Shaw, a vexatious litigant, applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had dismissed his application to set aside the declaration that he was a vexatious litigant. The applicant had also sought to appeal the Supreme Court's decision to set aside subpoenas issued in relation to the application. The Court of Appeal had dismissed an application for leave to appeal from these orders. The High Court was required to determine whether it should grant the applicant special leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, and ultimately to the High Court itself, in respect of the orders made by the Supreme Court.

The High Court considered whether the applicant had made out a case for special leave to appeal. In evaluating the application, the Court assessed the arguments put forward by the applicant and determined that they did not challenge the correctness of the orders made by the Supreme Court. The Court found that the application was incoherent and that the grounds of appeal did not address the matters that led to the applicant's declaration as a vexatious litigant in the first place. As a result, the High Court found that there was no basis for granting special leave to appeal.

The High Court dismissed the applicant's application for special leave to appeal against the Supreme Court's decision to set aside the subpoenas and to refuse to set aside the vexatious litigant declaration. The Court further directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application. This order effectively concluded the matter before the High Court, with no further appeal being possible.

The Court's decision highlights the stringent criteria that must be met for special leave to appeal to be granted, particularly in cases involving vexatious litigants. The Court's dismissal of the application reinforces the importance of ensuring that appeals are based on substantial legal arguments that challenge the correctness of the decisions being appealed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established