MORRIS JAMES CLIFFORD HENRY DEFENDANT (also known as JIM HENRY)
Matter No B71/1999
JOHN DOONEY PLAINTIFF
AND
STEPHEN CHAPMAN, DEFENDANT Deputy Commissioner of Taxation
Matter No B79/1999
VINCENT MORGILLO PLAINTIFF
AND
SPENCER ROSS DE VERE DEFENDANT
Matter No B80/1999
VINCENT MORGILLO PLAINTIFF
AND
STEPHEN CHAPMAN, DEFENDANTS Deputy Commissioner of Taxation & ANOR
Matter No B86/1999
IVAN GORSHKOV PLAINTIFF
AND
MARGARET MARY KEY DEFENDANT
Matter No B87/1999
IVAN GORSHKOV PLAINTIFF
AND
STEPHEN CHAPMAN, DEFENDANT Deputy Commissioner of Taxation
Matter No B88/1999
JEREMY DIVE PLAINTIFF
AND
STEPHEN CHAPMAN, DEFENDANT Deputy Commissioner of Taxation
Matter No B89/1999
JEREMY DIVE PLAINTIFF
AND
MARGARET MARY KEY DEFENDANT
Matter No B5/2000
WILLIAM GAIR PLAINTIFF
AND
STEPHEN CHAPMAN, DEFENDANT Deputy Commissioner of Taxation
Matter No B7/2000
MATTHEW MOELIKER PLAINTIFF
AND
MORRIS JAMES CLIFFORD HENRY DEFENDANT (also known as JIM HENRY)
Matter No B8/2000
MATTHEW MOELIKER PLAINTIFF
AND
STEPHEN CHAPMAN DEFENDANT
Dooney v Henry [2000] HCA 44 24 August 2000 B70/1999, B71/1999, B79/1999, B80/1999, B86/1999, B87/1999 B88/1999, B89/1999, B5/2000, B7/2000 and B8/2000
ORDER
In each matter:
1.The action be permanently stayed.
2.The respondent plaintiff or plaintiffs pay the applicant defendant's costs of the action (including this application) on an indemnity basis.
3.In action B5 of 2000 I order that:
(i)each party file any further material intended to be relied upon before 25 September next;
(ii)that written submissions be filed by each party before 10 October next; and
(iii)that the applicant's summons be adjourned to a date to be fixed.
Representation:
Matter Nos B70/1999, B71/1999, B86/1999, B87/1999, B88/1999, B89/1999, B7/2000 and B8/2000
D C Fitzgibbon for the plaintiff (instructed by Peter Brooke & Company)
J A Logan SC with C D Coulsen for the defendant (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)
Matter Nos B79/1999 and B5/2000
D C Fitzgibbon for the plaintiff (instructed by Rea & Sockhill)
J A Logan SC with C D Coulsen for the defendant (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)
Matter No B80/1999
D C Fitzgibbon for the plaintiff (instructed by Rea & Sockhill)
J A Logan SC with C D Coulsen for the first defendant (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)
No appearance for the second defendant
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
CALLINAN J. In these matters, which I have heard together, the plaintiffs have delivered Statements of Claim which all seek substantially the same relief and raise the same points for decision. In every case a Reply has also been delivered, and these also raise similar issues for determination. The defendants, who are the applicants in these matters, take no point on the attempt to raise by way of Reply, rather than by Statement of Claim, further issues.
In every case, the defendant (the applicant) has issued a summons seeking orders substantially as follows:
"1.the statement of claim be struck out on the ground that the Plaintiff has no standing to bring the action;
2.in the…
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 Dooney v Henry
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Dooney v Henry [2000] HCA 44
Case
[2000] HCA 44
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Dooney v Henry*, Callinan J of the High Court of Australia considered applications by the defendant in two separate actions for permanent stays of proceedings. The dispute concerned allegations of fraud and conspiracy, with the defendant seeking to halt the litigation on the grounds of abuse of process and vexation.
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the continuation of the proceedings constituted an abuse of process, warranting a permanent stay. This involved an assessment of whether the litigation was being pursued for improper purposes or in a manner that was oppressive or vexatious to the defendant.
Callinan J reasoned that the plaintiffs' conduct in pursuing the litigation, particularly in light of previous unsuccessful attempts to litigate similar matters and the nature of the allegations, amounted to an abuse of process. His Honour applied the principles governing the inherent power of the court to stay proceedings to prevent injustice, finding that the continued prosecution of the actions would be vexatious and an affront to the administration of justice.
Consequently, the Court ordered that the actions be permanently stayed. The respondent plaintiffs were also ordered to pay the applicant defendant's costs of the actions and the applications on an indemnity basis. Further directions were made regarding the filing of material and submissions in one of the actions, with the applicant's summons adjourned to a date to be fixed.
Orders
Orders of the court
In each matter:
1. The action be permanently stayed.
2. The respondent plaintiff or plaintiffs pay the applicant defendant's costs of the action (including this application) on an indemnity basis.
3. In action B5 of 2000 I order that:
(i) each party file any further material intended to be relied upon before 25 September next;
(ii) that written submissions be filed by each party before 10 October next; and
(iii) that the applicant's summons be adjourned to a date to be fixed.