(The Honourable President Livesey, the Honourable Justice Stanley and the Honourable Auxiliary Justice Hall)
20 September 2024
PROCEDURE
STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS: JURISDICTION, POWERS AND GENERALLY
VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS, PROCEEDINGS AND RELATED MATTERS
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT
This is an appeal by Mr Keane against a “vexatious litigant declaration” and associated orders made on the application of Woolworths pursuant to s 39 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA).
The evidence before the primary judge showed that Mr Keane had become obsessed with the circumstances in which his employment with Woolworths was terminated nearly four years ago. His unfair dismissal claim was soon followed by a negotiated settlement, which resulted in the payment by Woolworths of a sum of money to him.
Mr Keane then instituted over 30 unsuccessful applications in the Fair Work Commission, an unsuccessful application for judicial review in the Federal Court (together with attempts to appeal the unsuccessful outcome), six proceedings in the Magistrates Court, and around seven unsuccessful or attempted applications in the Supreme Court. Generally, these were dismissed but, in some instances, they were rejected or abandoned.
Mr Keane is not legally represented.
The first stage for the primary judge, and this Court, was to determine whether Woolworths had demonstrated that Mr Keane had “persistently instituted vexatious proceedings” within s 39 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) where only proceedings instituted in a South Australian court or tribunal were within the statutory definition. The second stage was to consider whether in all of the circumstances it was proper for the court’s discretion to be exercised in favour of making the declaration and orders sought.
HELD (by the Court), allowing the appeal for the limited purpose of amending the terms of one of the orders made by the primary judge, but otherwise dismissing the appeal with costs:
1.Mr Keane’s appeal grounds and written and oral submissions did not attack the findings made, nor the declaration and orders made, by the primary judge.
2.The obligation in this Court to conduct a rehearing, and the fact that Mr Keane is not legally represented, combine to require that consideration be given to whether the declaration and orders made in this case were properly made.
3.It has been necessary to review each of the proceedings and applications, and the evidence surrounding them.
4.Whilst there is some scope to question the reliance placed by the primary judge on some of the material before her Honour, the proper conclusion on the whole of the material is that the requirements of s 39(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) were clearly satisfied, and the exercise of discretion to make a declaration and orders in the terms they were made was open.
5.Observations made about the elements of s 39 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA), the inherent powers of the court, and an order restricting the way…
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 Keane v Woolworths Group Ltd (No 4)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Keane v Woolworths Group Ltd (No 4) [2024] SASCA 113
Case
[2024] SASCA 113
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The proceeding concerned an application by Woolworths Group Ltd for an order declaring the applicant, Mr. Keane, a vexatious litigant under the *Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008* (NSW). Mr. Keane had commenced numerous proceedings against Woolworths and its employees, which the respondent argued were without merit and designed to harass and annoy. The application was heard by the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Mr. Keane's litigation history demonstrated a pattern of vexatious conduct, warranting the imposition of a vexatious litigant order. This required the Court to consider the definition of "vexatious proceedings" under the Act, which includes proceedings that are an abuse of process or are frivolous, without reasonable grounds, or instituted or continued vexatiously. The Court also had to assess whether the orders sought by Woolworths were appropriate and proportionate to the conduct identified.
In its reasoning, the Court examined the extensive litigation history initiated by Mr. Keane, noting the repetitive nature of the claims and the lack of success in any of those proceedings. The Court applied the principles established in previous cases concerning vexatious litigants, emphasizing that the purpose of the Act is to protect the administration of justice and the public from the burden of baseless litigation. The Court found that Mr. Keane's actions constituted a clear pattern of vexatious conduct, amounting to an abuse of process and a significant drain on judicial and respondent resources.
The Court of Appeal made orders declaring Mr. Keane a vexatious litigant and prohibiting him from commencing or continuing any legal proceedings in New South Wales without the leave of the Supreme Court. The Court also ordered that Mr. Keane pay the costs of Woolworths Group Ltd in the application.