Horvath v Lander & Rogers and Ors - [2001] VSC 476

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

PRACTICE COURT

No. 7902 of 2001

GABOR HORVATH SENIOR	Plaintiff
v
LANDER & ROGERS AND OTHERS	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	BEACH, J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 December 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 December 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Horvath v. Lander & Rogers
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 476

---

CATCHWORDS:

Vexatious litigant – abuse of process of court – Proceeding disclosing no sensible cause of action – Dismissal of proceeding.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In person
For the Defendant	Mr D. Christie	Lander & Rogers

HIS HONOUR:

On 10 October 2001, Gabor Horvath Senior filed a writ in the court naming as defendants Lander & Rogers, which is a firm of solicitors practising in Melbourne, and G. McKenzie and Steven John Macchi who, as I understand it, are members of the firm.

By the writ Mr Horvath seeks to recover a total sum of $35,250,000 from the defendants.

As best one can judge from his statement of claim, his cause of action is based upon some form of conspiracy said to have been engaged in by the defendants. At all events, the claim relates to some long-running litigation in which Mr Horvath has been involved concerning a financial transaction he, his wife and son entered into many years ago with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.

On 27 April 1999 Weinberg, J. of the Federal Court had cause to deal with one of Mr Horvath's proceedings against the Commonwealth Bank or persons associated with it. In delivering his judgment that day, His Honour said:

"Mr Horvath has now been told on many occasions that his litigation with the bank is at an end. He has refused to accept that this is so. He has habitually and persistently returned to this court at considerable expense to the Trustee in Bankruptcy and the bank to re-agitate essentially the same points albeit under notionally different guises. The time has come, in my opinion, to put an end to this abuse of process. Mr Horvath has made it plain that unless some action is taken he will continue to return to this court seeking to raise yet again the same matters which have on so many occasions been determined against him".

The Trustee in Bankruptcy referred to in His Honour's reasons was Mr Horvath and his wife's own Trustee in Bankruptcy, they having been declared bankrupt by the Federal Court on 12 February 1997.

Mr Justice Weinberg then went on to make the following order against Mr Horvath and his wife:

"Mr Gabor Horvath Senior and Mrs Agota Horvath shall not, without leave of the court, institute in this court any proceeding against Mr Paul A. Paterson, their Trustee in Bankruptcy, or against the Commonwealth Bank of Australia other than an appeal against this order".

On 9 August 2001, Ashley, J. in this court declared the plaintiff a vexatious litigant and ordered that he not, without the leave…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Horvath v Lander & Rogers and Ors and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] VSC 476
Decision Date: 3 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case of Horvath v Lander & Rogers and Ors, the Federal Court of Australia was called upon to address a dispute involving a vexatious litigant who sought to bring proceedings against legal practitioners for alleged professional misconduct. The plaintiff, Mr Horvath, had a history of litigious behaviour and sought to hold the defendants liable for their alleged role in a series of events that he claimed had caused him significant harm. The defendants sought to have the proceedings dismissed on the grounds that they disclosed no sensible cause of action and were an abuse of the court's process.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's claims were frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and whether they should therefore be dismissed. The court was required to consider the history of the plaintiff's legal actions, the nature of the claims made, and whether they were likely to succeed on the merits or were otherwise an abuse of the court's process. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the defendants' motion for dismissal should be granted, and if so, whether it should be with or without costs.

The court found that the plaintiff's claims were indeed frivolous and vexatious, and constituted an abuse of the court's process. It was evident that Mr Horvath had a history of bringing numerous legal proceedings against various parties, many of which had been dismissed for lacking in substance or merit. The court determined that the claims made in this proceeding were no different, as they were based on a series of unfounded allegations and lacked any credible basis in fact or law. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff's actions were an abuse of the court's process, as they had the potential to cause unnecessary delay and expense to the defendants and the court system as a whole. As a result, the court granted the defendants' motion for dismissal, with the proceedings being dismissed with costs to be paid by the plaintiff.

Orders