Hunter v RSPCA - [2006] WASC 215

JURISDICTION	:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CHAMBERS
CITATION	:	HUNTER -v- RSPCA [2006] WASC 215

CORAM

: HASLUCK J

HEARD

: 15 SEPTEMBER 2006

DELIVERED

: 26 SEPTEMBER 2006

FILE NO/S

:	MCS 31 of 2006

BETWEEN

: LINDSAY HUNTER

Applicant
AND
RSPCA
Respondent

Catchwords:

Vexatious proceedings - Application by declared vexatious litigant for leave to institute proceedings - Nature of proposed proceedings - Proposed application to vary bail condition concerning not contacting prosecution witnesses - Proposed application for ex parte interlocutory injunction against RSPCA - Argumentative and unsubstantiated allegations of fraud, deceit, cruelty, fabrication of evidence, non-disclosure and extortion - Application for leave refused - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA), s 42, s 44, s 72
Bail Act 1982 (WA), s 14, Sch 1, Pt C, s 1(a)
Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 1930 (WA), s 3
Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA), s 6(6), s 6(7)

[2006] WASC 215

Result:

Application for leave to apply to vary bail condition and application for leave to file ex parte interlocutory injunction refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	In person
Respondent	:	Mr D J Pratt

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	In person
Respondent	:	Jackson McDonald

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
Attorney-General v Hunter [2002] WASC 189
Bates v Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone (1972) 1 WLR 1373
Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia (1986) 161 CLR 148
Graham v Campbell (1878) 7 Ch D 490
Hunter v Commissioner of Police [2003] WASC 10

Re The Attorney General of Western Australia the Hon Mr Jim McGinty or his

delegate; Ex parte Hunter [2003] WASC 149

Case(s) also cited:

Mallard (2005) 157 A Crim R 121

[2006] WASC 215

HASLUCK J

HASLUCK J:

Introduction

1 The applicant, Lindsay Hunter, has applied for leave to institute
proceedings pursuant to provisions of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA). The applicant relies upon a supportive affidavit sworn by himself on 15 August 2006 to which is exhibited an unsworn affidavit by himself concerning the proposed notice of motion for variation of bail. The contents of the unsworn affidavit are said to be true and correct.
2 An application for leave to proceed is clearly necessary. On
2 August 2002 I made an order in accordance with s 3 of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 1930 (WA) that no legal proceeding should be instituted by the applicant in the Supreme Court, or in any inferior court, unless the applicant first obtained the leave of the Supreme Court after satisfying it that the proposed proceeding would not be an abuse of the process of the Court in which it was intended to be instituted and that there was prima facie ground for such proceeding. My reasons for decision are set out in Attorney-General v Hunter [2002] WASC 189. Notice of the order in question was published in the Government Gazette on 16 August 2002.

In the course of my reasons…

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 Hunter v RSPCA

Details

AGLC: Hunter v RSPCA [2006] WASC 215
Case: [2006] WASC 215
Decision Date: 26 SEPTEMBER 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hunter sought leave to bring proceedings against the RSPCA. The proposed proceedings involved an application to vary a bail condition concerning not contacting prosecution witnesses and an application for an ex parte interlocutory injunction against the RSPCA. Hunter alleged fraud, deceit, cruelty, fabrication of evidence, non-disclosure and extortion against the RSPCA. The court was required to determine whether Hunter’s application for leave to institute proceedings was vexatious. The court assessed the nature of the proposed proceedings, the previous history of Hunter’s litigation, and whether the allegations were argumentative and unsubstantiated. The court found Hunter to be a vexatious litigant and refused the application for leave to bring proceedings. The court considered Hunter's previous history of vexatious litigation, the argumentative and unsubstantiated nature of the allegations, and the potential for further harassment of the RSPCA. The court concluded that the application was vexatious and refused leave to institute proceedings. The court made no orders as to costs.

Orders