Jorgensen v Wilson

In *Jorgensen v Wilson*, heard by Curtin AJ, the appellant sought to appeal a declaration made by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory that he was a vexatious litigant. The respondents sought to stay the appeal, arguing that the appellant did not have an unfettered right of appeal from such a declaration and that leave was required under section 67A of the *Supreme Court Act 1933* (ACT).

The central legal issues before the court were whether an order declaring a party a vexatious litigant was interlocutory or final, and consequently, whether leave to appeal was required under section 67A of the *Supreme Court Act 1933* (ACT). Further, the court considered whether the filing of a notice of appeal constituted a "proceeding" for the purposes of section 67A, which imposes a stay on proceedings where a party has been declared a vexatious litigant.

Curtin AJ reasoned that an order declaring a party a vexatious litigant is a final order, as it finally determines the rights of the parties in relation to the specific issue of vexatious litigation. Therefore, an appeal from such an order would ordinarily require leave. The court also determined that the filing of a notice of appeal is a "proceeding" within the meaning of section 67A. Consequently, the appeal was permanently stayed.

The court granted leave to the respondents *nunc pro tunc* to file their application dated 14 June 2023 and lifted the stay imposed by section 67A for the hearing and determination of that application. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the application.