FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Crocker v Infa-Secure Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 84
File numbers: QUD 668 of 2017
QUD 706 of 2017Judge: LOGAN J Date of judgment: 9 February 2018 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Federal Court of Australia – applicant seeking to appeal vexatious proceedings order – s 37AO(2) and s 37AM of the Federal Court Act – importance of access to justice system – conclusion that applicant had instituted proceedings frequently and without reasonable cause in Australian courts – s 37AO order made. Legislation: A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Act 1999 (Cth) s 184.1
A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cth) s 41
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), ss 53B, 74, 153A, 153B,
Federal Court of Australia Act1976 (Cth) ss 4, 31A, 37AO
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 10.11, r 26.12, r 40.20.
Cases cited: Bird v Registrar [2016] FCAFC 188
Boles v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2001) 183 ALR 239
Crocker v Toys R Us (Australia) Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1103.
Crocker v Toys R Us (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 727
Francis v Eggleston Mitchell Lawyers Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 564
Fuller v Toms (2015) 234 FCR 535
Infa-Secure Pty Limited v Crocker [2015] FCA 830
Infa-Secure Pty Limited v Crocker (No 2) [2016] FCA 202
Kowalski v Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd (2011) 198 FCR 153.
Re Williams (1968) 13 FLR 10
Date of hearing: 6 February 2018 Date of last submissions: QUD 668 of 2017 – 10 January 2018
QUD 706 of 2017 – 5 February 2018Registry: Queensland Division: General Division National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 32 In QUD 668 of 2017: Solicitor for the applicant The applicant made written submissions but did not appear in person
Solicitor for the respondent Chrysiliou Lawyers Counsel for the respondent Nicholas Ferrett In QUD 706 of 2017 Solicitor for the applicant Chrysiliou Lawyers Solicitor for the respondent The respondent made written submissions but did not appear in person
Table of Corrections 20 February 2018 The second sentence of paragraph 28 has been amended to read: “What persuades me that it is not is that Ms Crocker has persisted in bringing applications against Infa-Secure, as the bankruptcy review application and the bankruptcy annulment applications attest. To give judgment in respect of the s 37AO application will have no effect on the Court’s ability to determine the issues which are raised in QUD 9 of 2015.” 19 February 2018 In the last sentence of paragraph 27: “That is because, as against the remaining parties to that proceeding, judgement in respect of the substantive application is presently reserved” has been replaced with: “Ms Crocker is also a respondent to QUD 9 of 2015, brought by Infa Secure, judgment in which is presently reserved.” 19 February 2018 In the last sentence…
Continue reading Crocker v Infa-Secure Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Crocker v Infa-Secure Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 84
- Case
- [2018] FCA 84
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the respondent’s history of litigation, noting that she had instituted numerous proceedings in various courts, many of which were dismissed or withdrawn without success. This pattern indicated a propensity to engage in litigation that was not warranted or had little prospect of success. The court also considered the respondent’s submissions and the evidence presented but ultimately found that the respondent had not demonstrated that the primary judge erred in concluding that she had instituted proceedings frequently and without reasonable cause. The court emphasised the need to protect the justice system from those who abuse the legal process, underscoring the importance of maintaining public confidence in the courts.
Consequently, the court upheld the vexatious proceedings order, prohibiting the respondent from instituting proceedings in the Court, subject to specified exceptions. The court also ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the application. This decision reinforces the Federal Court's commitment to preventing vexatious litigation and safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process. The final orders reflect the court's determination that the respondent’s history of litigation warranted stringent measures to prevent further abuse of the court’s processes.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Subject to the exception specified in Order 2, the respondent be prohibited, pursuant to section 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), from instituting proceedings in the Court.
2. The prohibition specified in Order 1 not extend to any interlocutory application by the respondent in proceeding QUD 9 of 2015 in the Court subsequent to the delivery of judgement in respect of the substantive application in that proceeding or to any appeal by her from that judgement.
3. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the application, to be taxed if not agreed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.