High Court—Practice—Vexatious litigant—Inherent jurisdiction—To restrain commencement of action without leave—To restrain lodging of appeal without leave—To restrain making of unwarranted applications in existing proceedings without leave—High Court Rules, O. 63, r. 6(1)*. * Order 63, r. 6(1) of the High Court Rules provides: "Upon the application of a Law Officer, or the Crown Solicitor of the Commonwealth or of the Principal Registrar of the Court, the Court or a Justice, if satisfied that a person, frequently and without reasonable ground has instituted vexatious legal proceedings, may, after hearing that person or that other person or giving him an opportunity of being heard, order that he shall not, without the leave of the Court or a Justice, begin any action appeal or other proceeding in the Court."
Decision
May 14. THE COURT delivered the following written judgment:- The applicant in the matter now before the Court (herein called the applicant) was the defendant in an action brought against it in the original jurisdiction of this Court by the respondents to the present application (herein called the respondents). The action was tried by a Justice of this Court who dismissed it. An appeal against that decision had been lodged but had no been heard at the time this application was before the Court. The applicant's notice of motion seeks an order "pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction" of the court that no legal proceedings should be instituted or applications in existing proceedings made or appeals lodged by the respondents or either of them without leave of a Justice of the court "by reason of their having habitually and persistently and without any reasonable grounds instituted vexations legal proceedings, made repeated vexatious applications in pending actions and conducted legal proceedings in a vexatious and time-wasting manner". (at p312)
2. Order 63, r, 6(1) of the Rules of this Court provides:
"Upon the application of a Law Officer, or the Crown Solicitor of the Commonwealth or of the Principal Registrar of the Court, the Court or a Justice, if satisfied that a person, or another person in concert with that person, frequently and without reasonable ground has instituted vexatious legal proceedings, may, after hearing that person or that other person or giving him an opportunity of being heard, order that he shall not, without the leave of the Court or a Justice, begin any action appeal or other proceeding in the Court."
It is clear and it was conceded that the present application is not authorized by that provision. It is apparent also that this is not an application of the kind described in r. 2 of O. 63, which provides: "An application to stay proceedings on the ground that there is not a reasonable or probable cause of action or suit, or that the proceeding is…
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.
Continue reading Commonwealth Trading Bank v Inglis
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Commonwealth Trading Bank v Inglis [1974] HCA 17
Case
[1974] HCA 17
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Commonwealth Trading Bank (the Bank) appealed to the High Court of Australia against a judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in favour of the respondent, Mr. Inglis. The dispute concerned the Bank's liability for the loss of a valuable parcel of jewellery entrusted to it for safekeeping. Mr. Inglis had delivered the jewellery to the Bank for storage, and it was subsequently lost while in the Bank's possession.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Bank had discharged its onus of proving that it had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the loss of the jewellery. This involved determining the standard of care required of the Bank as a bailee for reward and assessing whether its actions met that standard in the circumstances of the case. The Court also considered the nature of the bailment and the extent of the Bank's obligations to safeguard the bailed goods.
The Court, in its judgment, affirmed the principles of bailment law, particularly the duty of care owed by a bailee for reward. It was held that the Bank, having received the jewellery for reward, was obliged to exercise a high degree of care in its safekeeping. The Court found that the Bank had failed to establish that it had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent the loss, and therefore, it had not discharged its onus of proof. The specific circumstances surrounding the loss, including the security measures in place and the actions of the Bank's employees, were scrutinised and found wanting. The appeal was dismissed.