In the Matter Of Re Rules Of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA); Ex Parte - [2024] WASC 301

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   IN THE MATTER OF RE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT 1971 (WA); EX PARTE HUGGINS [2024] WASC 301
CORAM:   HOWARD J
HEARD:   20 AUGUST 2024
DELIVERED          :   22 AUGUST 2024
PUBLISHED           :   22 AUGUST 2024
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1795 of 2024
MATTER:   IN THE MATTER OF RE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT 1971 (WA); EX PARTE HUGGINS

EX PARTE
DONALD HUGGINS
Plaintiff by Ex Parte

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Unrepresented applicant - Application for leave to file and issue writ of summons - Whether draft writ an abuse of process or frivolous or vexatious - Where no defendant is properly identified - Whether draft writ proceeds on a fatal misapprehension

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff by Ex Parte

In person

Solicitors:

Plaintiff by Ex Parte

In person

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

Re Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) - Ex parte Gates [2018] WASC 213

HOWARD J:

On or about 13 June 2024 Mr Huggins sought to have the Court issue a writ indorsed with a statement of claim.
That draft writ was not accepted for filing and was referred to a Registrar of this Court.
The Registrar wrote on 17 June 2024 to Mr Huggins:
The document sought to be filed appears to be an abuse of the Court or a frivolous or vexatious proceeding. Please note that in the context of considering a writ for acceptance for filing, the words vexatious and frivolous have a particular legal meaning. I confirm that the Court will not accept the document for filing in its current form until such time as you have obtained the leave of a judge or master.
On 3 July 2024, Mr Huggins filed an ex parte motion for leave to issue the draft writ.
That draft writ is 27 pages long and named the defendant as 'Department of Justice - West Australia'.
The motion is supported by Mr Huggins' two affidavits filed on 3 July 2024 which were sworn on 13 June and 3 July 2024 respectively.
In addition, Mr Huggins supplied the Court with his Letter of Demand dated 29 November 2023 addressed to the Director General of the Department of Justice which set out a number of matters which supplemented or repeated matters in Mr Huggins' affidavits and the draft writ.
Mr Huggins seeks to hold the proposed defendant Department responsible for what he says are seriously flawed orders and rulings made by certain State Courts against him.
It is plain from the draft statement of claim that Mr Huggins is seriously aggrieved by a series of orders which were made by the Family Court of Western Australia and by the District Court of Western Australia sitting at Albany, or the Magistrates Court in Albany.
I note that I have reached no conclusions as to the merits or otherwise of Mr Huggins’ grievances.
The following from the…

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 In the Matter Of Re Rules Of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA); Ex...

Details

AGLC: In the Matter Of Re Rules Of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA); Ex Parte [2024] WASC 301
Case: [2024] WASC 301
Decision Date: 22 AUGUST 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Rules of the Supreme Court 1971, the applicant, who was unrepresented, applied for leave to file and issue a writ of summons. The application was made ex parte, without notifying the defendant. The applicant sought to bring a proceeding against an unspecified entity. The legal issues before the court involved whether the draft writ was an abuse of process or frivolous or vexatious, and whether it proceeded on a fatal misapprehension, given that no defendant was properly identified.

The court examined the draft writ to determine whether it was an abuse of process, frivolous, or vexatious. It considered whether the draft writ proceeded on a fatal misapprehension by not properly identifying a defendant. The court held that the draft writ was indeed an abuse of process as it was filed without proper identification of the defendant. Additionally, the court found that the draft writ was frivolous or vexatious because it was unclear and did not provide sufficient details to proceed with the case. Furthermore, the court determined that the draft writ proceeded on a fatal misapprehension, as it did not specify who the defendant was.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to file and issue the writ of summons. The court found that the draft writ was an abuse of process, frivolous or vexatious, and proceeded on a fatal misapprehension, as it did not properly identify a defendant. The court's decision was based on the lack of clarity and specificity in the draft writ, which made it impossible to proceed with the case.

Orders