Brisbane City Council v Mathews - [2006] QSC 25

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

[2006] QSC 025

FRYBERG J

No BS729 of 2006

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL	Applicant
and
RUSSELL GORDON HAIG MATHEWS	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 09/02/2006

ORDER

HIS HONOUR: This is an application by the Brisbane City Council seeking first a declaration that the respondent,
Mr Mathews, is a person who has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australia; second, an order that certain proceedings pending in this Court between the respondent and 25 or so other defendants be stayed permanently as against the applicant and five of its employees who are also defendants; and third, an order that the respondent be prohibited from instituting any proceedings in Queensland against the applicant or any of its employees. Counsel for the applicant indicated during the course of argument that the last of these orders was intended to refer only to proceedings instituted in the Courts of the State of Queensland and was not intended to encompass proceedings instituted in Federal Courts.

The relevant provision of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 is section 6 which provides in subsections 1, 2 and 5 as follows:

"(1) This section applies if the Court is satisfied that a person is -
(a) a person who has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australia; or

(b) a person who, acting in concert with a person who is subject to a vexatious proceedings order or who is mentioned in paragraph (a), has instituted or conducted a vexatious proceedings in Australia.

(2) The Court may make any or all of the following orders -
(a) an order staying all or part of any proceeding in Queensland already instituted by the person;

(b) an order prohibiting the person from instituting proceedings, or proceedings of a particular type, in Queensland;

(c) any other order the Court considers appropriate in relation to the person.

(5) For subsection (1), the Court may have regard to -
(a) proceedings instituted or conducted in any Australian court or tribunal, including proceedings instituted or conducted before the commencement of this section; and

(b) orders made by any Australian court or tribunal, including orders made before the commencement of this section."

In support of the application, Mr Peden of counsel submitted that the appropriate principle is to be found in the decision of the President in re Cameron [1996] 2 Queensland Reports 218 at page 220:

"It is also necessary to decide what makes legal proceedings vexatious. Although there are sometimes statutory indications, the broad test potentially concerns such factors as the legitimacy or otherwise of the motives of the person against whom the order is sought, the existence or lack of reasonable grounds for the claims sought to be made, repetition of similar allegations or arguments to those which have already been rejected, compliance with or disregard of the Court's practices, procedures and rulings, persistent attempts to use the Court's process to circumvent its decisions or other abuse of process, the wastage of public resources and funds, and the harassment of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Brisbane City Council v Mathews and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] QSC 25
Decision Date: 09/02/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Brisbane City Council v Mathews was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The Brisbane City Council sought a declaration that Russell Gordon Haig Mathews was a person who frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australia. The Council also sought an order staying certain proceedings pending in the court between the respondent and other defendants, and an order prohibiting the respondent from instituting any proceedings in Queensland against the Council or its employees. The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the respondent was a vexatious litigant, and whether the court should grant the orders sought by the Council. The court found that the respondent was a vexatious litigant and granted the orders sought by the Brisbane City Council. The court based its decision on the evidence presented by the Council, which included a set of certified copies of reasons for judgment in cases identified by the Council. The court found that the proceedings brought by the respondent were vexatious due to factors such as the lack of reasonable grounds for the claims, disregard of the court's practices and procedures, and the wastage of public resources and funds. The court also found that the respondent's disability did not excuse his conduct. The court granted the orders sought by the Council, including a declaration that the respondent was a vexatious litigant, an order staying certain proceedings, and an order prohibiting the respondent from instituting any proceedings in Queensland against the Council or its employees. The court also ordered that the respondent pay the Council's costs of the application.

Orders