Collier v Attorney General (NSW)

Case [2023] NSWCA 273

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Collier v Attorney General (NSW) [2023] NSWCA 273
Hearing dates: 18 May 2023
Date of orders: 16 November 2023
Decision date: 16 November 2023
Before: Ward P at [1];
Kirk JA at [2];
Griffiths AJA at [87]
Decision:

(1) Grant leave to appeal.

(2) The applicant is to file a notice of appeal, in the form of her draft notice of appeal contained within the white folder, within 14 days.

(3) Appeal dismissed with costs.

Catchwords:

APPEALS — Procedure — Vexatious litigants — Where allegations of bias and misconduct without merit — Whether ss 6(a), (c) and (d) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) depend on subjective intent — Whether ss 14 or 17 of the Limitation Act 1969 apply to vexatious proceeding orders — Whether proceedings conducted in a rude and offensive manner can be vexatious — Whether order should be made requiring that leave to institute proceedings be given by Supreme Court — Whether time limit should be imposed on order — No House v The King error established for the discretionary making of vexatious proceeding orders

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 59, 66(1)

Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), ss 14, 17

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 33.13

Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW), ss 4, 6, 8, 8(1), 8(2) 8(7), 8(8), 9, 10, 13(1), 12(1), 14(2), 16

Cases Cited:

Attorney General for the State of New South Wales v Collier (No 1) [2022] NSWSC 457

Attorney General for the State of New South Wales v Collier (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 903

Attorney General for the State of New South Wales v Collier [2020] NSWSC 1572

Attorney General of NSW v Wilson [2010] NSWSC 1008

Attorney General v TareqAltaranesi [2013] NSWSC 63

Batterham v Nauer [2020] NSWCA 204

Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; [2000] HCA 63

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, [1936] HCA 40

Potier v Attorney General in and for the State of New South Wales (2015) 89 NSWLR 284; [2015] NSWCA 129

Teoh v Hunters Hill Council (No 8) [2014] NSWCA 125

Viavattene v Attorney General(NSW) [2015] NSWCA 44

Victoria International Container Terminal Limited v Lunt (2021) 271 CLR 132; [2021] HCA 11

Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509; [1992] HCA 34

Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited [2018] NSWCA 317

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Marion Louise Collier (Applicant)
Attorney General of New South Wales (Respondent)
Representation:

Advocates:
Marion Louise Collier (in person)
D Birch (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office (NSW) (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/119930
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction:
Common Law
Citation:

Attorney General for the State of New South Wales v Collier (No 1) [2022] NSWSC 457; Attorney General for the State of New South Wales v Collier (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 903

Date of Decision:
05 April 2022
Before:
Cavanagh J
File Number(s):
2019/183521

Continue reading Collier v Attorney General (NSW)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Collier v Attorney General (NSW) [2023] NSWCA 273
Case
[2023] NSWCA 273
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned an application by the applicant, Ms Collier, against the Attorney-General (NSW), challenging an order made under the *Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008* (NSW). The primary dispute revolved around whether the applicant qualified as a vexatious litigant, leading to restrictions on her ability to commence further legal proceedings. The matter was heard by Ward P, Kirk JA, and Griffiths AJA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine several key legal issues. These included whether the provisions of the *Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008* (NSW), specifically sections 6(a), (c), and (d), were contingent on the subjective intent of the litigant. The Court also considered the applicability of sections 14 or 17 of the *Limitation Act 1969* to orders made under the *Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008* (NSW). Furthermore, the Court had to assess whether proceedings conducted in a rude and offensive manner could be characterised as vexatious, and whether an order requiring leave from the Supreme Court to institute proceedings, potentially with a time limit, was appropriate. The Court also considered whether any error had been established in the exercise of discretion by the lower court in making the vexatious proceedings order.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the provisions of the *Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008* (NSW) do not depend on the subjective intent of the litigant, but rather on the objective nature of the proceedings. It was held that the *Limitation Act 1969* does not apply to vexatious proceeding orders. The Court affirmed that proceedings conducted in a rude and offensive manner can indeed be considered vexatious. The Court found no error in the discretionary making of the vexatious proceeding order by the lower court.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, ordered the applicant to file a notice of appeal within 14 days, but dismissed the appeal with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Grant leave to appeal.

(2) The applicant is to file a notice of appeal, in the form of her draft notice of appeal contained within the white folder, within 14 days.

(3) Appeal dismissed with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.