Croker v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd - [2018] NSWSC 345

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Croker v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd [2018] NSWSC 345
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 19 March 2018
Decision date: 19 March 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Davies J
Decision:
(1) Refuse leave to institute proceedings against Samsung Electronics Co Limited and Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Limited.
(2) Dismiss the Summons.
Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – parties – vexatious litigants – leave to institute proceedings – Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) – applicant sought leave to proceed with claim dismissed by NCAT – no need for oral hearing – affidavit did not comply with s 14(3)(a) and (c) – no prima facie ground for the proceedings - proceedings vexatious within meaning of s 6(b) – leave refused
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 146
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), sch 2
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 37AO(2)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 42.34
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW), ss 6, 8(7), 14-16
Cases Cited: Application by Bar-Mordecai [2013] NSWSC 1908
Attorney General of New South Wales v Croker [2010] NSWSC 942
Soden v Croker (No. 2) [2016] FCA 15; (2016) 334 ALR 540
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Clayton Robert Croker (Plaintiff)
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (First Defendant)
Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
On the papers
Solicitors:
Self-represented (Plaintiff)

File Number(s): 2017/382280
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

On 22 July 2010 Fullerton J made orders pursuant to s 8(7) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) prohibiting Clayton Robert Croker, the plaintiff herein, from instituting proceedings in New South Wales other than with leave of an appropriate court under that Act, and staying any proceedings instituted by him before the date of the order: Attorney General of New South Wales v Croker [2010] NSWSC 942.
A similar order was made in respect of proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia by Perry J in Soden v Croker (No. 2) [2016] FCA 15; (2016) 334 ALR 540 pursuant to s 37AO(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).
The plaintiff by summons filed 7 December 2017 seeks this order:

1. An order granting leave to proceed with the consumer claim matter in the New South Wales Civil & Administrative Tribunal or in the alternative to start the consumer claim in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, pursuant the (sic) Vexatious Litigation Act 2008 (NSW) (sic) and orders of the Court 22 July 2010.

This judgment concerns a preliminary determination under s 14 of the Act. It is not necessary for the applicant to be accorded an oral hearing for an application such as the present: Application by Bar-Mordecai [2013] NSWSC 1908 at [13]–[16].
Sections 14 to 16 of the Act provide:

14 Application for leave to institute proceedings
(1) This section applies to a person (the applicant) who is:
(a) subject to a vexatious proceedings order prohibiting the person from instituting proceedings, or
(b)…

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 Croker v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd

Details

AGLC: Croker v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd [2018] NSWSC 345
Case: [2018] NSWSC 345
Decision Date: 19 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Croker v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought leave to proceed with a claim against the defendant that had been dismissed by the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The plaintiff argued that the dismissal was unjust and sought to institute further proceedings against the defendant. The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) and the requirements for leave to proceed with proceedings that had already been dismissed. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff's affidavit complied with the statutory requirements and whether there was a prima facie ground for the proceedings.

The court found that the plaintiff's affidavit did not comply with section 14(3)(a) and (c) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) as it did not include a statement of the relief sought and did not set out the facts relied upon in a manner that was clear and concise. The court further found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a prima facie ground for the proceedings, as the claim was based on the same facts and legal arguments as the claim that had already been dismissed by the NCAT. The court concluded that the proceedings were vexatious within the meaning of section 6(b) of the Act and refused the plaintiff's application for leave.

The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the statutory requirements for leave to proceed with dismissed proceedings and the nature of the plaintiff's claim. The court found that the plaintiff's affidavit did not meet the statutory requirements and that the proceedings were vexatious, as they were an abuse or misuse of the court's process. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the evidence and arguments presented by the parties and was consistent with the principles of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW). The plaintiff's application for leave was refused, and the court dismissed the proceedings.

Orders