Elizabeth Mina Benz v P D Mortgage Services Pty Ltd
Case
•
[1999] QSC 19
•10 February 1999
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Elizabeth Mina Benz v P D Mortgage Services Pty Ltd [1999] QSC 19
[1999] QSC 19
10 February 1999
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Elizabeth Mina Benz has filed an application for a statutory order of review against the entry of judgment by Deputy Registrar N Greig on 23 December 1998, which was made pursuant to an order by Thomas J on 22 October 1996. P D Mortgage Services Pty Ltd (PDMS) has filed a notice of motion seeking the dismissal of Benz's application on the grounds outlined in section 48 of the Judicial Review Act 1991. The central legal issues before the court revolve around whether the entry of judgment by the Deputy Registrar constitutes a decision to which the Judicial Review Act applies, whether the application represents an abuse of process or is vexatious or frivolous, and whether other means of review are available.
The court considered the nature of the Deputy Registrar's actions in entering judgment, concluding that it was merely giving effect to a prior order made by Thomas J. The court held that this act did not constitute a decision of an administrative character under the Judicial Review Act. Furthermore, the court found that Benz's application was an abuse of process, as it duplicated numerous proceedings already initiated or disposed of by other courts. Additionally, the application was deemed frivolous and vexatious as it aimed to circumvent the appropriate legal processes and allow a declared vexatious litigant to continue litigation without proper leave.
The court also examined whether other avenues for review were available and concluded that adequate provision for review existed under the rules of the Supreme Court, specifically through reconsideration, rehearing, or appeal. Given the availability of these alternative means, the court found it appropriate to dismiss Benz's application for review.
The court dismissed the application for a statutory order of review and indicated that submissions on costs would be heard.
The court considered the nature of the Deputy Registrar's actions in entering judgment, concluding that it was merely giving effect to a prior order made by Thomas J. The court held that this act did not constitute a decision of an administrative character under the Judicial Review Act. Furthermore, the court found that Benz's application was an abuse of process, as it duplicated numerous proceedings already initiated or disposed of by other courts. Additionally, the application was deemed frivolous and vexatious as it aimed to circumvent the appropriate legal processes and allow a declared vexatious litigant to continue litigation without proper leave.
The court also examined whether other avenues for review were available and concluded that adequate provision for review existed under the rules of the Supreme Court, specifically through reconsideration, rehearing, or appeal. Given the availability of these alternative means, the court found it appropriate to dismiss Benz's application for review.
The court dismissed the application for a statutory order of review and indicated that submissions on costs would be heard.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Abuse of Process
-
Res Judicata
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
0
Craig v South Australia
[1995] HCA 58
Craig v South Australia
[1995] HCA 58
Craig v South Australia
[1995] HCA 58