Classic Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shearman (No 3)

[2024] ACTSC 282

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Classic Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shearman (No 3)

Citation: 

[2024] ACTSC 282

Hearing Date: 

16 August and 5 September 2024

Decision Date: 

12 September 2024

Before:

McCallum CJ

Decision: 

Leave to file the two applications referred to me by the Registrar on 26 July 2024 is refused.

Catchwords: 

CIVIL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where Registrar referred two applications sought to be filed by a self-represented litigant to a judicial officer under rule 6142 of the Court Procedure Rules for consideration as to whether applications should be accepted for filing – consideration as to whether litigant should have leave to file the documents – whether documents an abuse of process – where litigant had served numerous notices for non-party production and obtained numerous documents – failure to prove inadequate production or need for further documents

Legislation Cited: 

Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 6142

Parties: 

Classic Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)

Debra Shearman (Second Defendant)

Representation: 

Counsel

B Buckland (Plaintiff)

Self-represented (Second Defendant)

Solicitors

MV Law (Plaintiff)

Self-represented (Second Defendant)

File Number:

SC 417 of 2022

McCALLUM CJ:       

EX TEMPORE REASONS (REVISED)

1․Sometime before 26 July 2024, the second defendant in the proceedings, Mrs Shearman, attempted to file two applications in the Registry seeking orders compelling compliance with 31 notices of non-party production she had previously served.

2․On 26 July 2024, I made an order in chambers directing the Registrar to reject those applications unless leave was granted pursuant to r 6142(3) of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT). That rule applies to a document filed in the Court which appears to the registrar on its face to be an abuse of the Court’s process or to be frivolous or vexatious.

3․The rule contemplates that one of the courses the Registrar may take in that circumstance is to refer the document to a judicial officer for directions about how to deal with it.  The Registrar having formed the relevant view, she brought the documents to me for that purpose. 

4․Rule 6142(3) provides:

If the registrar refers the document to a judicial officer, the judicial officer may direct the registrar—

(a) to accept the document; or

(b) to reject the document; or

(c) to reject the document unless the court gives leave to accept the document.

5․I took the view that, while I shared the Registrar’s impression that the documents appeared on their face to be an abuse of the Court’s process (for reasons I will explain), having regard to Mrs Shearman’s circumstances, it was appropriate to afford her an opportunity to seek leave to file the documents.  I directed the Registrar accordingly.  The proceedings were listed before me on 16 August 2024 to consider whether leave should be granted.

6․The applications distinguished between notices for non-party production served by Mrs Shearman on eight entities, as to which there has been no response, and notices served on a further 23 entities, as to which there has been a response…