Groom v Attorney-General

The appeal concerned Mr Groom's challenge to orders made by Blue J in the Supreme Court of South Australia. These orders included a prohibition, pursuant to s 39 of the relevant Act, on Mr Groom instituting proceedings in a prescribed court without prior leave, and the dismissal of his interlocutory application seeking a stay of vexatious litigant proceedings. Mr Groom also appealed a decision by Kourakis CJ directing that his interlocutory application be heard concurrently with the trial of the vexatious litigant application.

The legal issues before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia included whether the intervention order made against Mr Groom was invalid, whether Mr Groom had persistently instituted vexatious proceedings without reasonable grounds, and whether it was appropriate for the Court to exercise its discretion to declare him a vexatious litigant. Further issues arose from Mr Groom's grounds of appeal, which alleged denials of natural justice by both Kourakis CJ and Blue J, errors of law regarding the court in which proceedings were heard, and failures by Blue J to adhere to statutory requirements and properly consider evidence concerning the validity of an intervention order and the integrity of court files.

Lovell and Bleby JJ considered the findings of Blue J, who had determined that the intervention order was not invalid, that Mr Groom had instituted 11 vexatious proceedings between 2014 and 2020, and that it was appropriate to make an order declaring him a vexatious litigant. The Court noted that Blue J had dismissed the application for a stay on the basis that it lacked foundation, given his findings on the vexatious litigant application. The grounds of appeal raised by Mr Groom were examined in light of these findings and the relevant legal principles concerning vexatious litigants and procedural fairness.

The Full Court dismissed the appeal. It found no error in the decision of Blue J to make an order under s 39 of the Act declaring Mr Groom a vexatious litigant, nor in his dismissal of the application for a stay. The Court also dismissed the appeal against the directions made by Kourakis CJ.