Ezekiel-Hart v Reis

Link copied
Case Copied 42 min read

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Ezekiel-Hart v Reis

Citation:

[2018] ACTSC 264

Hearing Dates:

13 February, 15 May 2018

DecisionDate:

19 September 2018

Before:

McWilliam AsJ

Decision:

See [119] – [120]

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for summary judgment – whether reasonable cause of action disclosed – application seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant – where arguable causes of action found and plaintiff demonstrates some insight into legal consequences – applications dismissed

Legislation Cited:

Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) s 118
Court Procedures Act 2004 (ACT) s 68
Crimes Act 1900
(ACT) ss 396, 399
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 308, 713, 715
Discrimination Act 1991
(ACT)
Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56, 210 CLR 575
Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) s 88Q
Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) ss 8, 10, 12, 17, 19, 21, 40, 40B, 40C
Legal Profession Act 2006 (ACT) ss 37, 81, 558, 562, 576, 587A
Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) ss 184A, 190
Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) s 21B
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 67A
Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT) rr 40, 111, 405, 406, 407, 407A, 407B, 425, 430, 1147, 5076, 5103, 6350, 6351

Cases Cited:

Attorney-General v Chan [2011] NSWSC 1315
Attorney General vTareq Altaranesi [2013] NSWSC 63
Attorney General for the State of New South Wales v Mohareb [2016] NSWSC 1823
Attorney General of New South Wales v Croker [2010] NSWSC 942
Attorney General in and for the State of NSW v Gargan [2010] NSWSC 1192
Attorney General of NSW v Wilson [2010] NSWSC 1008
Barlow v Law Society of the ACT [2018] ACTCA 16
Brogden v Attorney-General [2001] NZCA 208; NZAR 809
Cristian v Bottrill [2016] ACTSC 315
Collins v Jones [1955] 1 QB 564
Ezekiel-Hart v The Law Society of the ACT & Anor [2014] FCCA 658
Ezekiel-Hart v Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory
Reis, King and Barnett [2012] ACTSC 103
Ezekiel-Hart v Reis & Anor (Discrimination)
[2017] ACAT 3
Galovac Pty Ltd v Australian Capital Territory [2010] ACTSC 132
Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Gargan (No 2) [2009] FCA 398
Mahmoud v Attorney General of New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 12

Pascoe v Liprini [2011] NSWSC 1484
Potier v Attorney-General (NSW) [2015] NSWCA 129; 89 NSWLR 284
Siteberg v Maples [2010] NSWSC 1344
Teoh v Hunters Hill Council (No 8) [2014] NSWCA 125
Vatarescu v Commonwealth of Australia and the Australian Capital Territory [2013] ACTSC 270; 285 FLR 1
Viavattene v Attorney General (NSW) [2015] NSWCA 44

Parties:

Emmanuel Tam Ezekiel-Hart (Plaintiff in SC 433 of 2017, Appellant in SCA 75 of 2017)

Robert Anthony Reis (First Defendant in SC 433 of 2017, First Respondent in SCA 75 of 2017)

Council of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory (Second Defendant in SC 433 of 2017, Second Respondent in SCA 75 of 2017)

Australian Capital Territory (Third Defendant in SC 433 of 2017)

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ezekiel-Hart v Reis and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2018] ACTSC 264
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ezekiel-Hart and Reis were the parties involved in this legal dispute, which was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Ezekiel-Hart, filed an application for summary judgment against the defendant, Reis, in relation to an alleged debt of approximately $24,000. The defendant contested the claim, arguing that the plaintiff was a vexatious litigant and sought a declaration to that effect. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's application for summary judgment disclosed a reasonable cause of action and whether the defendant's application for a declaration that the plaintiff was a vexatious litigant should succeed.

The primary legal issues for the court to resolve were whether the plaintiff's claims met the threshold for a reasonable cause of action and whether the plaintiff's conduct warranted a declaration of vexatious litigiousness. In assessing the plaintiff's application for summary judgment, the court had to consider whether the defendant had a bona fide defence to the plaintiff's claims and whether there were any arguable facts that could be relied upon. In considering the defendant's application for a declaration of vexatious litigiousness, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff had engaged in conduct that demonstrated a pattern of frivolous or oppressive litigation.

The court dismissed both applications. In dismissing the plaintiff's application for summary judgment, the court found that there were arguable facts and causes of action, and that the plaintiff had demonstrated some insight into the legal consequences of the proceedings. The court found that the plaintiff had not acted vexatiously in bringing the application for summary judgment, and that the defendant had not demonstrated that the application should be dismissed on the basis of the plaintiff's history of litigation. In dismissing the defendant's application for a declaration of vexatious litigiousness, the court found that the plaintiff's conduct did not amount to vexatious litigation, as the plaintiff had demonstrated some insight into the legal consequences of the proceedings and had not engaged in a pattern of frivolous or oppressive litigation.

The court dismissed both the plaintiff's application for summary judgment and the defendant's application for a declaration that the plaintiff was a vexatious litigant. The court found that the plaintiff's application for summary judgment disclosed a reasonable cause of action and that the defendant had not demonstrated that the application should be dismissed on the basis of the plaintiff's history of litigation. The court also found that the plaintiff's conduct did not amount to vexatious litigation, as the plaintiff had demonstrated some insight into the legal consequences of the proceedings and had not engaged in a pattern of frivolous or oppressive litigation.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [119] – [120]

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.