Fire & Rescue NSW v Clinen

[2013] NSWSC 609

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Attorney-General v Altaranesi [2013] NSWSC 609

Hearing dates:

21 May 2013

Decision date:

21 May 2013

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

Davies J

Decision:

(1) Vary the order made by Slattery J on 15 February 2013 to add the following order in addition to the existing orders made by his Honour:

(5) The Defendant may continue to conduct the proceedings in the Workers Compensation Commission identified as Matter Number 8742/12 up to judgment or other resolution at first instance.

Catchwords:

PROCEDURE - judgments - variation of - no point of principle.

Legislation Cited:

Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008

Cases Cited:

Attorney General v Tareq Altaranesi [2013] NSWSC 63

Category:

Interlocutory applications

Parties:

Attorney-General of NSW (Plaintiff)
Tareq Altaranesi (Defendant)

Representation:

Solicitors:
D Galbraith, Crown Solicitors Office (Plaintiff)
F Fagan, Santone Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s):

2012/126206

Judgment

1. On 15 February 2013 Slattery J made an order under section 8 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 against the Defendant. That order had the effect of staying a number of proceedings that were commenced by the present Defendant against various Defendants.

1. Justice Slattery noted in paragraph 3 of his reasons for judgment that the proceedings all seemed to have arisen because of the perception by the Defendant of injustice arising from a workplace incident in March 2008. The Workers Compensation Proceedings relate to that injury.

1. The Workers Compensation Proceedings were not brought to Slattery J's attention by either party. I am told that searches were done by the Crown Solicitor of proceedings commenced by the Defendant but that the Workers Compensation Proceedings were not found.

1. The Defendant was acting for himself when the proceedings were before Slattery J, but he did not bring the Workers Compensation Proceedings to the judge's attention.

1. The Defendant is now legally represented and seeks a variation of Slattery J's order in these terms,

That the Defendant may continue to conduct the proceedings in the Workers Compensation Commission identified as matter 8742/12 up to judgment or other resolution in this instance.

1. That order is not opposed by the Attorney General. It is appropriate that it should be made.

1. The Defendant seeks costs of the Motion on the basis that the Crown's search of proceedings in respect of which the vexatious proceedings order would be made, did not locate the Workers Compensation Proceedings and that that necessitated the bringing of the present Motion.

1. In circumstances where the Defendant was aware of the existence of those proceedings, and it would seem to have formed the very basis of all of the proceedings that he had subsequently commenced which ultimately led to the making of the Vexatious Proceedings order, it does not seem appropriate that there should be any costs order against the Attorney General in that regard. The oversight was unfortunate on both sides.

1. In those circumstances there should be no order for costs on the Motion. I make an order in terms of paragraph 1 of the Notice Motion filed 14 May 2013.

**********

Decision last updated: 29 May 2013