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

BRIAN WILLIAM SHAW
v
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF VICTORIA
[2013] HCASL 120
M31/2013

The applicant was declared to be a vexatious litigant by the Supreme Court of Victoria in May 2007[1]. He is prohibited from commencing proceedings in any State court or tribunal without the leave of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant sought leave to file and serve "criminal charges" against the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria. Beach J in the Common Law Division of that Court refused leave, holding that the proceedings, if commenced, would be an abuse of the process of the Court[2]. That conclusion was undoubtedly correct. The applicant has filed an application for special leave to appeal from Beach J's order. His application and written case are largely unintelligible and must be dismissed.
[1]Attorney-General for the State of Victoria v Shaw [2007] VSC 148.
[2]Attorney-General for the State of Victoria v Shaw (No 5) [2013] VSC 106 at [16].
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
14 August 2013 S.J. Gageler

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brian William Shaw, a vexatious litigant as declared by the Supreme Court of Victoria in 2007, sought to file criminal charges against the Chief Justice of Victoria. The Supreme Court of Victoria, under Beach J, refused Shaw leave to commence these proceedings, determining that such an action would constitute an abuse of the court's process. Dissatisfied with the decision, Shaw applied for special leave to appeal this ruling to the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues at the heart of this case revolve around the interpretation and application of the vexatious litigant declaration placed on Shaw. The primary question was whether the proposed proceedings against the Chief Justice would amount to an abuse of the court's process, a determination already made by the lower court. The secondary issue concerns the standard of leave required to appeal the refusal of such leave in the first instance. Shaw's application for special leave was largely unintelligible and did not present a coherent case for the court to consider.

The High Court found that the lower court's refusal to grant leave was justified. Beach J correctly identified that the proposed proceedings would be an abuse of process, a conclusion upheld by the High Court. Additionally, the court noted that Shaw's application for special leave was largely unintelligible, lacking the necessary clarity and coherence to warrant further consideration. As a result, the High Court dismissed Shaw's application for special leave to appeal.

Consequently, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed by the High Court, and the order of the Supreme Court of Victoria was upheld. The court also directed the Registrar to formalise this decision into a signed and sealed order.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established