FRIGGER -v- LEAN [No 2] [2016] WASCA 212
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2016] WASCA 212 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACV:65/2015 | 24 OCTOBER 2016 | |
| Coram: | MARTIN CJ BUSS P MURPHY JA | 30/11/16 | |
| 31 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for leave to appeal, and the appeal, dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ANGELA FRIGGER HARTMUT FRIGGER GRAEME TREVOR LEAN |
Catchwords: | Abuse of process Application to permanently stay proceedings Claim based on substantially the same facts as previous unsuccessful claim Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Allmark v Mossensons (a firm) [2006] WASCA 127 Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CLR 175 Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd (in liq) v Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd [No 11] [2016] WASC 365 Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd (in liq) v Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd [No 6] [2014] WASC 105 Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd v Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd [2008] WASC 133 Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd v Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd [No 3] [2010] WASC 2 Frigger v Campbell-Smith [2010] WASC 353 Frigger v Lean [2012] WASCA 66 Frigger v Lean [2015] WASC 125. Frigger v Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd [No 3] [2014] WASCA 69 Leybourne v Habkouk [2012] NSWCA 212 Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd (Administrator Appointed) v Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd [No 3] [2010] WASC 93 Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd v Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd [2008] WASCA 222 Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd v Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd [2010] WASC 38 Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd v Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd [No 2] [2009] WASCA 183 Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd v Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd [No 2] [2009] WASCA 183 (S) Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd v Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd [No 2] [2010] WASC 113 Re Luck [2003] HCA 70; (2003) 78 ALJR 177 Sheraz Pty Ltd v Vegas Enterprises Pty Ltd [2015] WASCA 4; (2015) 48 WAR 93 Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 28 Trawl Industries of Australia Pty Limited v Effem Foods Pty Limited (1992) 36 FCR 406 Tyne (Trustee) v UBS AG [2016] FCA 241 Wing Luck Foods v Lay Choo Lim [1989] WAR 358 Zavodnyik v Alex Constructions Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 438; (2005) 67 NSWLR 457 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : FRIGGER -v- LEAN [No 2] [2016] WASCA 212 CORAM : MARTIN CJ
- BUSS P
MURPHY JA
- HARTMUT FRIGGER
Appellants
AND
GRAEME TREVOR LEAN
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Continue reading Frigger v Lean [No 2]
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Frigger v Lean [No 2] [2016] WASCA 212
- Case
- [2016] WASCA 212
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter of Frigger v Lean [No 2] involved the applicant, Frigger, seeking a permanent stay of proceedings against the respondent, Lean, on the basis that the claim was an abuse of process due to it being substantially based on the same facts as a previous unsuccessful claim. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute centered around whether the applicant's current claim was an abuse of the court's process because it was based on substantially the same facts as a previous claim that had already been dismissed.
The primary legal issue for the court to decide was whether the applicant's claim constituted an abuse of process, specifically whether it was an abuse for the applicant to pursue a claim that was based on substantially the same facts as a previous unsuccessful claim. The court had to determine if the applicant's current claim turned on its own facts or if it was merely a reiteration of a previous claim that had already been dismissed by the court. The court also had to consider whether the applicant's claim was an abuse of process by virtue of the applicant's conduct in bringing the claim.
The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and the appeal. The court found that the applicant's claim did not constitute an abuse of process. It held that the applicant's claim turned on its own facts, and it was not substantially based on the same facts as the previous claim. The court also found that the applicant's conduct in bringing the claim did not amount to an abuse of process. The court held that the applicant's previous unsuccessful claim did not prevent the applicant from pursuing a new claim based on different facts. The court concluded that the applicant's claim was not an abuse of process and dismissed the application for leave to appeal and the appeal.
The primary legal issue for the court to decide was whether the applicant's claim constituted an abuse of process, specifically whether it was an abuse for the applicant to pursue a claim that was based on substantially the same facts as a previous unsuccessful claim. The court had to determine if the applicant's current claim turned on its own facts or if it was merely a reiteration of a previous claim that had already been dismissed by the court. The court also had to consider whether the applicant's claim was an abuse of process by virtue of the applicant's conduct in bringing the claim.
The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and the appeal. The court found that the applicant's claim did not constitute an abuse of process. It held that the applicant's claim turned on its own facts, and it was not substantially based on the same facts as the previous claim. The court also found that the applicant's conduct in bringing the claim did not amount to an abuse of process. The court held that the applicant's previous unsuccessful claim did not prevent the applicant from pursuing a new claim based on different facts. The court concluded that the applicant's claim was not an abuse of process and dismissed the application for leave to appeal and the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal, and the appeal, dismissed
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.