Craig Andrew Betts - Application under Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 - [2013] NSWSC 1121

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Craig Andrew Betts - Application under Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 [2013] NSWSC 1121
Hearing dates: On the papers
Decision date: 16 August 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
Application for leave to commence proceedings contained in the Summons dated 3 June 2013 is dismissed

Catchwords: Vexatious litigant - application for leave to institute proceedings - non compliant affidavit - no prima facie ground - no point of principle
Legislation Cited: Supreme Court Act 1970
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008
Cases Cited: Attorney-General (NSW) v Betts [2004] NSWSC 901
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Craig Andrew Betts (A)
Representation: Counsel:
Self Represented (A)

File Number(s): 2013/170301

Judgment

The Application

On 3 June 2013, Craig Andrew Betts filed a summons in which he claims the following relief:

"1. To appeal against all Police Charges and Fines such a traffic matters and other fines they are sending.

2. To move all police charges to the Downing Centre as Wollongong Police and Court too close and acting abusively and corruptly and the interpretation of the vexatious litigant decision from them means that everyone is able to abuse me act violently and corruptly. Also they act not in the interests of Justice. I and my mother are even harassed and pushed and prodded by Security staff. Now I have even had a Fine sent to me in the mail by Police from being at Court which I was legally there for a court proceeding and the Registrar refuses to answer the question who range me before the Court decision and said you cant see the Registrar as you are a vexatious litigate come down and look at my Gazette. They also have not answered a complaint about security and other matters and have been forced to s53 Review of Conduct under PIPA Act 1998 for securities invasion of personal space of my Mother and self and they have lost personal medical information and subpoenas on the NSW Police and Professional standards command.

3. To appeal against Charges of 2012/00104940 which the District Court has not heard and Judge Conlon said adjourned and no one has answered with the transcript nor has Judge Conlon answered and email about the matter. The charge was not even heard and I was convicted in my absence. There is another matter to do with this at the moment to do with this and to be able to appeal against this as well. I was not receiving the dates of mentions and some things had been sent willy nilly to my email demanding such things as I appear the next day or week some of which I never received and some went to my spam box.

4. To lay charges against certain NSW Police and have some action taken for especially kicking my door in and seizing unlawfully 3 computers and one smart phone without a warrant from the Supreme Court.

5. To Revoke the vexatious litigant order in full or vary

6.…

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 Craig Andrew Betts - Application under Vexatious Proceedings... 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: [2013] NSWSC 1121
Decision Date: 16 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court, the applicant, Craig Andrew Betts, sought leave to institute proceedings against the respondent, the Commonwealth of Australia, under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008. The applicant had previously been declared a vexatious litigant by the Court, and therefore required leave to commence proceedings against the Commonwealth. The Court was required to determine whether the applicant had demonstrated a prima facie ground for instituting proceedings and whether there was a point of principle that warranted granting leave. The Court also had to consider the applicant's non-compliant affidavit and its effect on the application.

The Court found that the applicant had not demonstrated a prima facie ground for instituting proceedings. The Court noted that the applicant's affidavit did not comply with the requirements of the Act, as it did not contain the necessary particulars and evidence to support the claim. The Court further found that there was no point of principle that warranted granting leave, as the applicant had previously been declared a vexatious litigant and had failed to demonstrate that the proceedings were not an abuse of the Court's process. The Court held that the applicant's non-compliant affidavit was a significant factor in its decision not to grant leave.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for leave to institute proceedings. The Court held that the applicant had not met the threshold requirements of the Act and that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted granting leave. The Court emphasised the importance of complying with the requirements of the Act and the need for applicants to demonstrate a prima facie ground for instituting proceedings.

No orders were made as the application was dismissed.

Orders