HUNTER -v- RSPCA WA INC [2008] WASC 153

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2008] WASC 153
Published:	24/07/2008
Case No:	CIV:1812/2008	Heard:	10 JULY 2008
Coram:	EM HEENAN J	Delivered:	10/07/08
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	LINDSAY HUNTER RSPCA WA INC ROBIN MOORE
Catchwords:	Application by a vexatious litigant for a permanent stay of orders made in the Magistrates Court concerning the forfeiture of dogs under the Animal Welfare Act Application to rescind or vary the orders declaring the applicant a vexatious litigant in the Supreme Court of Western Australia
Legislation:	Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA) Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA) Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA)
Case References:	Attorney-General v Hunter [2002] WASC 189

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : HUNTER -v- RSPCA WA INC [2008] WASC 153 CORAM : EM HEENAN J HEARD : 10 JULY 2008 DELIVERED : 10 JULY 2008 PUBLISHED : 24 JULY 2008 FILE NO/S : CIV 1812 of 2008 BETWEEN : LINDSAY HUNTER

Applicant

AND

RSPCA WA INC

First Respondent

ROBIN MOORE

Second Respondent

Catchwords:

Application by a vexatious litigant for a permanent stay of orders made in the Magistrates Court concerning the forfeiture of dogs under the Animal Welfare Act - Application to rescind or vary the orders declaring the applicant a vexatious litigant in the Supreme Court of Western Australia

Legislation:

Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA)

Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA)
Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA)

(Page 2)

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : In person

First Respondent : Mr K S Pratt

Second Respondent : Mr K S Pratt

Solicitors:

Applicant : In person

First Respondent : Jackson McDonald

Second Respondent : Jackson McDonald

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

Attorney-General v Hunter [2002] WASC 189

(Page 3)

1 EM HEENAN J: On 1 July 2008 Mr Lindsay Hunter, the present applicant, instituted proceedings in this court seeking a permanent stay of certain orders made by her Honour Magistrate Langdon in the Magistrates Court on 10 December 2007 which involved, among other things, the forfeiture of certain dogs to the State.

2 That application came on for hearing ex parte before me on 4 July 2008, supported by a number of affidavits, with Mr Hunter appearing on his own behalf. It emerged that Mr Hunter was at that time, as he still is, declared to be a vexatious litigant under the provisions of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA). It was, therefore, necessary, as he realised, for leave to be granted under s 6 of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act for him to institute these very proceedings. He sought to be absolved from any necessity to comply with the provisions of s 6 which in the ordinary events requires service of copies of the application upon the person against whom the proceedings are to be instituted, any person who…

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 WA Inc

Details

AGLC: Hunter v RSPCA WA Inc [2008] WASC 153
Case: [2008] WASC 153
Decision Date: 10 JULY 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hunter applied for a permanent stay of orders made in the Magistrates Court concerning the forfeiture of dogs under the Animal Welfare Act. The application was made in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, seeking a stay of the orders and a declaration that the applicant was a vexatious litigant. The application also sought to rescind or vary the orders made in the Magistrates Court. The legal issues in the case involved whether the applicant qualified as a vexatious litigant and, if so, whether the orders made in the Magistrates Court should be stayed or varied. The court examined the definition of a vexatious litigant and whether the applicant's actions met the criteria for such a declaration. The court also considered whether the orders made in the Magistrates Court were appropriate and whether there were grounds for varying or rescinding them.

The court found that Hunter did not qualify as a vexatious litigant as the definition required a pattern of vexatious litigation. The court held that the orders made in the Magistrates Court were appropriate and there were no grounds for varying or rescinding them. The court dismissed Hunter's application for a permanent stay of the orders and also dismissed the application to rescind or vary the orders declaring the applicant a vexatious litigant. The court found that the orders made in the Magistrates Court were consistent with the law and that there were no grounds for the Supreme Court to interfere with them. The court held that the applicant's actions did not meet the criteria for a declaration of vexatious litigation, and therefore, the orders made in the Magistrates Court should stand.

The Supreme Court dismissed Hunter's application and affirmed the orders made in the Magistrates Court concerning the forfeiture of dogs under the Animal Welfare Act. The court held that the applicant did not qualify as a vexatious litigant and that the orders made in the Magistrates Court were appropriate. The court also found that there were no grounds for varying or rescinding the orders declaring the applicant a vexatious litigant. The final orders of the court were that Hunter's application for a permanent stay of the orders and to rescind or vary the orders declaring the applicant a vexatious litigant were dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.