Croker v Attorney General of New South Wales

Case [2010] NSWCA 355



New South Wales


Court of Appeal


CITATION: Croker v Attorney General of New South Wales [2010] NSWCA 355
HEARING DATE(S): 10 December 2010
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 

10 December 2010
JUDGMENT OF: Allsop ACJ at 1; McColl JA at 4
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 10 December 2010
DECISION: Application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
CATCHWORDS: APPEAL - civil - application for leave to appeal - vexatious litigant
LEGISLATION CITED: Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW), s 8(7)(b)
CATEGORY: Principal judgment
PARTIES: Clayton Robert Croker (Applicant)
Attorney General of New South Wales (Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 2010/275605
COUNSEL: In person (Applicant)
D Ward (Respondent)
SOLICITORS: In person (Applicant)
Crown Solicitor of New South Wales (Respondent)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court - Common Law Division
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2010/20153
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Fullerton J
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 22 August 2010
LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: Attorney General of New South Wales v Croker [2010] NSWSC 942




                          2010/275605

                          ALLSOP ACJ
                          McCOLL JA

                          Friday 10 December 2010

CROKER v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Judgment

1 ALLSOP ACJ: This is an application for leave to appeal. The orders made by a judge of the Common Law Division under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) in which the learned primary judge made orders in particular pursuant to s 8(7)(b) of that Act prohibiting the applicant from instituting proceedings in New South Wales other than with leave of an appropriate court under that Act. The orders were made on 22 July 2010. Reasons were given by her Honour on 26 August 2010. The reasons are contained in, if I may respectfully say so, a careful and comprehensive judgment of 137 paragraphs in which her Honour carefully reviews the litigation history of the applicant from 1997 through to the date when her Honour was dealing with it. Her Honour was persuaded for the reasons she gave that an order should be made under the Act.

2 Mr Croker has addressed the Court today principally on the basis that proceedings should never have been brought by reason of the asserted misconduct of the Attorney General of New South Wales in bringing the proceedings and his asserted failure to comply with the model litigant rules and particular Rules of Court as to the placement of the address for service on the summons.

3 None of the matters that have been indicated today in submissions by Mr Croker throws any doubt at all on her Honour’s reasons. There is no basis to think that there is any prospect of success in the appeal and, in my view, the application should be dismissed with costs.

4 McCOLL JA: I agree.

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.


**********

Details
AGLC
Croker v Attorney General of New South Wales [2010] NSWCA 355
Case
[2010] NSWCA 355
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Croker, sought leave to appeal against an order made by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The nature of the dispute involved an application to set aside or vary a judgment or order, with the applicant being declared a vexatious litigant. The appeal was heard by Allsop ACJ and McColl JA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant granting leave to appeal against the Supreme Court's decision. This required the Court to consider the merits of the applicant's proposed grounds of appeal and whether there was a real prospect of success.

The Court of Appeal considered the applicant's submissions and the relevant rules of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, particularly those concerning the setting aside and variation of judgments and orders, and the time limits prescribed for such applications. After reviewing the material, the Court concluded that the applicant had not established a sufficient basis for granting leave to appeal.

Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

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.