Legal Research
Cases
Jorgensen v Wilson (No 2)

Jorgensen v Wilson (No 2)

Case [2023] ACTSC 40 10 March 2023

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Jorgensen v Wilson (No 2)
Citation:	[2023] ACTSC 40
Hearing Dates:	13 and 24 February 2023
DecisionDate:	10 March 2023
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [71]
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ABUSE OF PROCESSS – Application to strike out or stay proceedings as an abuse of process or otherwise as being frivolous, scandalous, unnecessary, vexatious or disclosing no reasonable cause of action – application to stay proceedings pending payment of costs in earlier proceedings – where plaintiff sought to discontinue proceedings – proceedings lack merit and seek to relitigate matters subject to previous proceedings – proceedings amount to abuse of process – proceedings permanently stayed – costs for the defendants on a solicitor and client basis PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS – Where defendants seek declaration that the plaintiff be declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to s 67A of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) – whether plaintiff has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings – whether plaintiff has sought to relitigate matters already decided – plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant
Legislation Cited:	Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 1989 (Cth), s 30 Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) Corporations Law (Cth), s 600(3) Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 40, 111(1), 222, 400, 425, 502, 504, 1147, 1160(1), 1163, 1169 Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) Public Service Act 1999 (Cth) Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 67A
Cases Cited:	Ezekiel-Hart v Council of the Law Society of the ACT & Anor [2021] ACTSC 133 Ezekiel-Hart v Reis [2018] ACTSC 264 Jorgensen v ASIC [2022] TASSC 40 Jorgensen vAustralian Securities & Investments Commission [2004] FCA 143 Jorgensen v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2019] TASSC 46 Jorgensen v Jorgensen [2016] QSC 193 Jorgensen v Jorgensen (No 3) [2021] FCA 209 Jorgensen v Shorten (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1761 Re Cameron [1996] 2 Qd R 218 Thames Investment & Securities PLC v Benjamin [1984] 1 WLR 1381 Walton v Gardener (1993) 177 CLR 378 Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509
Parties:	Alan Jorgensen ( Plaintiff) Cheryl Wilson ( First Defendant) Graham Ashworth ( Second Defendant) Ailsa Wilson ( Third Defendant) Graeme Donald ( Fourth Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel Self-represented ( Plaintiff) J R Clarke SC with T Kane ( Defendants)
Solicitors Self-represented ( Plaintiff) Ashurst ( Defendants)
File Number:	SC 165 of 2022

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

The plaintiff, Alan Bradley Jorgensen, has commenced proceedings against four people who he claims were, in 1999, officers of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). The proceedings were commenced by originating application filed on 25 May 2022. The originating application seeks six declarations and an order that ASIC provide third-party discovery of certain matters. The grounds for the application are stated in six paragraphs of the originating application. As the matter was commenced by originating application, no statement of claim was filed with it. The application was supported by an affidavit of Mr Jorgensen dated…

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 Jorgensen v Wilson (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Jorgensen v Wilson (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 40
Case: [2023] ACTSC 40
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jorgensen v Wilson (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 40 was heard by Mossop J in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The plaintiff, Alan Jorgensen, brought proceedings against four former officers of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) who were involved in events in 1999. The defendants sought to strike out or stay the proceedings on the basis that they were an abuse of process or otherwise frivolous, scandalous, unnecessary, vexatious, or lacking reasonable cause of action. The defendants also sought a declaration that Jorgensen was a vexatious litigant under s 67A of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) and sought an order for indemnity costs.

The court found that the proceedings were an abuse of process because they lacked merit and sought to relitigate matters that had been subject to previous proceedings. The proceedings were also statute-barred, and no standing was identified. The court concluded that the proceedings amounted to an abuse of the court's process and were liable to be permanently stayed. The court further found that Jorgensen had frequently instituted vexatious proceedings and made a declaration that he was a vexatious litigant. The court ordered that Jorgensen pay the defendants' costs on a solicitor and client basis and that any application for gross sum costs be made within 28 days of the date of the orders.

Orders