Hambleton v Labaj

[2010] QSC 124

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hambleton and Anor v Labaj [2010] QSC 124

PARTIES:

DAVID JAMES HAMBLETON AND ROBERT EUGENE MURPHY AS LIQUIDATORS OF CASTLEPLEX PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
ACN 086 604 793
(applicants)
v
JOHN LABAJ
(respondent)

FILE NO:

11274 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

29 April 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 October 2009.  Supplementary written submissions dated 9 and 12 April 2010

JUDGE:

Applegarth J

ORDERS:

1.     John Labaj is declared to be a person who has        frequently instituted or conducted vexatious        proceedings in Australia.

2.     The applicants submit within 7 days draft orders        prohibiting the respondent from instituting        proceedings (apart from an appeal from these        orders) in Queensland without the prior leave of a        judge of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – application for declaration that respondent is a vexatious litigant – whether “vexatious” proceedings instituted “frequently” – whether circumstances justify a declaration.

ACTS CITED

Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld)

CASES

Brisbane City Council v Russell Gordon Haig Mathews [2006] QSC 25
Jones v Cusack (1992) 66 ALJR 815
National Australia Bank Ltd v Freeman [2006] QSC 86
Re Cameron [1996] 2 Qd R 218

COUNSEL:

V G Brennan for the applicant
S Fajardo for the respondent (28 October 2009)

SOLICITORS:

Irish Bentley Lawyers for the applicant
MLDG Lawyers for the respondent (28 October 2009)
The respondent was self-represented when making supplementary written submissions

1. The applicants seek relief pursuant to the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld) (“the Act”), namely a declaration that the respondent (Mr Labaj) is a “vexatious litigant” and certain ancillary relief staying proceedings. There is a preliminary issue about the applicants’ standing under the Act to bring the application. The issue of substance is whether I should be satisfied that Mr Labaj has “frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australia”.[1]

   [1]Section 6(1)(a) of the Act.

1. “Proceedings” includes, amongst other things, interlocutory proceedings and appeals within the jurisdiction of any court or tribunal.[2]

   [2]See the dictionary in the Act’s Schedule.

1. The applicants submit that:

(a)Between 14 January 2004 and 27 May 2005, Mr Labaj filed 14 proceedings in the District Court of Queensland (three of which were appeals from Magistrates’ Court proceedings).

(b)Between 3 October 2003 and 15 June 2005, Mr Labaj filed 17 proceedings in the Supreme Court of Queensland (eight of which were appeals to the Court of Appeal).

(c)Mr Labaj was an undischarged bankrupt from 3 June 2005 until 11 August 2008.

(d)Mr Labaj filed two further District Court proceedings on 12 December 2007 and on 26 March 2009 (the latter being an appeal from Magistrates’ Court proceedings).

(e)Between 4 February and 24 June 2009, Mr Labaj filed four Supreme Court proceedings (three of which were appeals to the Court of Appeal).  Mr Labaj also filed an interlocutory application in proceedings against the applicants seeking a stay of certain orders pending appeal.

1. Accordingly, and with respect to (a) and (b), Mr…