KEANE J: These applications for special leave to appeal were heard on 6 March 2019 by Justice Edelman and me. The applicant was also given an opportunity in writing and at the hearing on 6 March to make submissions on the question whether a vexatious proceedings order, under s 77RN(2) of the Judiciary Act1903 (Cth), should be made against him.

For the reasons that I now publish, Justice Edelman and I would dismiss the applications for special leave to appeal and make the vexatious proceedings order.

In each matter the orders are:

1.The applications for special leave to appeal be dismissed.
2.The summons filed on 22 February 2019 be dismissed.
3.The summons filed on 27 February 2019 be dismissed.
4.The applicant be prohibited from instituted any further proceedings in this Court relating to the convictions the subject of Conomy v Maden [2016] WASCA 30 and Conomy v Maden [2016] WASCA 31.

I publish those orders.

Justice Edelman and I direct that the reasons as published be incorporated into the transcript.

On 11 January 2019 and 31 January 2019, Mr Jerrod James Conomy filed two applications for special leave to appeal to this Court from the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in Conomy v Maden [2016] WASCA 30. That decision was delivered on 18 February 2016.

On 13 February 2019, the Deputy Registrar wrote to Mr Conomy, informing him that his applications for special leave to appeal had been listed for hearing before a Full Court on 6 March 2019. In that letter, the Deputy Registrar also informed Mr Conomy that, given the history of applications by him, a vexatious proceedings order under s 77RN(2) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) might be made against him following the hearing of his applications. Mr Conomy was directed to file any written submissions upon which he might wish to rely on in this regard by 4.00 pm on 1 March 2019.

On 22 February 2019, after the applications for special leave had been listed for hearing on 6 March 2019, Mr Conomy filed in each application a summons seeking leave to amend the application. He sought an immediate determination in respect of each summons. He was informed by the Deputy Registrar that each summons would be heard on 6 March 2019.

On 27 February 2019, Mr Conomy filed a further summons in each application seeking an extension of time in which to file written submissions in respect of the foreshadowed vexatious proceeding order, and requesting information in relation to the provision of documents by the Court for his assistance. Mr…

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 Conomy v Maden

Details

AGLC: Conomy v Maden [2019] HCATrans 49
Case: [2019] HCATrans 49
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia, constituted by Justices Keane and Edelman, considered applications for special leave to appeal made by Mr Jerrod James Conomy. These applications concerned his convictions for stalking and breaching a violence restraining order, which had been affirmed by the Court of Appeal of Western Australia. In addition to determining the special leave applications, the Court also considered whether to make a vexatious proceedings order against Mr Conomy under s 77RN(2) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).

The legal issues before the Court were whether to grant Mr Conomy special leave to appeal from the decisions of the Western Australian Court of Appeal, and whether his history of litigation warranted the making of a vexatious proceedings order. The Court was required to assess whether Mr Conomy had advanced any grounds that justified a reconsideration of the earlier decisions, and whether his persistent pursuit of these matters constituted vexatious conduct within the meaning of the Judiciary Act.

The Court reasoned that Mr Conomy's applications for special leave to appeal were an attempt to re-agitate issues that had been finally determined by this Court on 12 October 2016, and that no new grounds had been advanced to justify a reconsideration. It found that his conduct in continuing to file applications and seek to reopen concluded matters was vexatious. The Court noted that Mr Conomy had a history of instituting and conducting vexatious proceedings in Australian courts, and that the current applications were further examples of this behaviour. Consequently, the Court concluded that its discretion to make an order under s 77RN(2) of the Judiciary Act had been enlivened.

The Court dismissed Mr Conomy's applications for special leave to appeal. Furthermore, it made an order prohibiting Mr Conomy from instituting any further proceedings in the High Court relating to the convictions that were the subject of the appeals. The Court also dismissed summonses filed by Mr Conomy seeking to amend his applications and seeking extensions of time, finding them to be part of his vexatious conduct.

Orders