Legal Research
Cases
Granich Partners v Yap

Granich Partners v Yap

Case [2003] WASC 206 31 October 2003

Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act (2002)

Jurisdiction

Vexatious Proceedings

Abuse of Process

Res Judicata

Issue Estoppel

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

GRANICH PARTNERS -v- YAP [2003] WASC 206

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASC 206
Case No:	CIV:2722/2002	Heard:	17 MARCH & 16 JULY 2003
Coram:	EM HEENAN J	Delivered:	31/10/03
No of pages:	33	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Order prohibiting the commencement of proceedings against the applicants by the respondent in a court or tribunal of this State without leave granted under s 6 of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act (2002)
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	GRANICH PARTNERS YAP CHENG SEE
Catchwords:	Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act (2002) Application for leave to declare respondent a vexatious litigant Criteria for leave to be granted to private applicant Application to High Court of Australia for special leave to appeal Appeal to Full Court Federal Court of Australia Relief available only in respect of proceedings in courts or tribunals of Western Australia Relevance of conduct of proceedings in federal jurisdiction Limited interest of applicants Limited restriction on commencing new proceedings
Legislation:	Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act (2002)
Case References:	Attorney General v Keating [2000] WASC 93 Attorney General v Michael [1999] WASCA 181 Attorney General v Wentworth (1988) 14 NSWLR 481 Commonwealth Trading Bank v Inglis (1974) 131 CLR 311 Cox v Journeaux [No 2] (1935) 52 CLR 713 Granich & Associates v Yap Chang See [1999] FCA 1039 Grepe v Loam (1887) 37 Ch D 168 Hunter v Leahy [1999] FCA 1075 Hunters Hill Municipal Council v Pedler [1976] 1 NSWLR 478 Jones v Skyring (1992) 66 ALJR 810 Lord Kinnard v Field [1905] 2 Ch 306 O'Shea v Cameron [1996] Qd R 218 P v P (1994) 181 CLR 583 Re Attorney General (Commonwealth); ex parte Skyring (1996) 70 ALJR 321 Suir v Newton (1886) 37 Ch D 169 Yap & Anor v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2000] WASC 159 Yap Cheng See v Commonwealth Bank of Australia, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980512; 10 September 1998 Yap v Granich & Associates [2001] FCA 1735 Yap v Granich & Associates [2001] FCA 799 Yap v Granich & Associates [2002] FMCA 284 Yap v Granich & Associates [2002] WASCA 330. , Yap v Granich & Associates, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970487; 21 July 1997 Attorney General v Hunter [2002] WASC 189 Barlow v North Fremantle Municipality (1937) 39 WALR 89

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : GRANICH PARTNERS -v- YAP [2003] WASC 206 CORAM : EM HEENAN J HEARD : 17 MARCH & 16 JULY 2003 DELIVERED : 31 OCTOBER 2003 FILE NO/S : CIV 2722 of 2002 BETWEEN : GRANICH PARTNERS

Applicant

AND

YAP CHENG SEE

Respondent

Catchwords:

Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act (2002) - Application for leave to declare respondent a vexatious litigant - Criteria for leave to be granted to private applicant - Application to High Court of Australia for special leave to appeal - Appeal to Full Court Federal Court of Australia - Relief available only in respect of proceedings in courts or…

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 Granich Partners v Yap

Details

AGLC: Granich Partners v Yap [2003] WASC 206
Case: [2003] WASC 206
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Granich Partners, a firm of solicitors, applied to the Supreme Court of Western Australia for an order prohibiting Yap Cheng See from instituting any further proceedings against them in the State without first obtaining leave from the court. Yap had instituted a large number of proceedings against Granich Partners over a number of years, all of which had been unsuccessful. The proceedings involved in this case were all related to a claim by Yap against Granich Partners for damages for negligence and breach of duty in relation to proceedings brought by a third party, Vivante, against Yap. This claim was dismissed and appeals against that decision were unsuccessful. Despite this, Yap continued to bring proceedings against Granich Partners, both in State courts and in federal courts, which were also unsuccessful. The court found that Yap had instituted vexatious proceedings against Granich Partners, and granted an order prohibiting Yap from instituting any further proceedings against Granich Partners, or any of their former staff or partners who were involved in the proceedings against Yap, without leave of the court. The order was limited to proceedings in the State of Western Australia.

Orders