Lawlor v Langenheim - [2022] VSC 591

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST
PRACTICE COURT

S ECI 2022 03406

MARK LAWLOR	Plaintiff
v
RUBY ROSE LANGENHEIM	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	O’Meara J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	27 September 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 October 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Lawlor v Langenheim
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 591

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Refusal by Prothonotary to accept for filing generally indorsed writ seeking to make a claim against Hollywood actress ‘Ruby Rose’ – Proposed proceeding allied with non-party discovery application made in respect of rapper ‘Pitbull’ – Whether proceeding would be irregular or an abuse of the process of the Court – No direction made to accept the documents for filing.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In person

HIS HONOUR:

These reasons should be read together with my reasons concerning the allied application of Mr Lawlor seeking orders that non-party discovery be made by Armando Christian Perez, a.k.a ‘Pitbull’.[1]
[1]Lawlor v Perez [2022] VSC 590.

I will not repeat here my identification and consideration of the relevant rules, principles and various material sought to be filed and relied upon by Mr Lawlor. It is presently sufficient to note that I have determined that the application sought to be made in respect to ‘Pitbull’ would constitute an abuse of process of the Court and so should not be accepted for filing.

In the present instance, on 1 September 2022, Mr Lawlor sought to commence a proceeding by generally indorsed writ directed to Ruby Rose Langenheim. The material identifies that person to be a Hollywood actress seemingly referred to as ‘Ruby Rose’. Mr Lawlor’s proposed indorsement of claim accompanying the writ reads as follows –

The plaintiffs claim is for exemplary damages for injuries and trauma he received in an incident which occurred in 2017, involving the defendant at Broadmeadows magistrates court, case number: H12439666. The incident occurred whilst the plaintiff and defendant were involved in a hearing in which the defendant impersonated a judge. The accident occurred as the result of negligence of the defendant, it’s servants or agents and the plaintiff claims exemplary damages.[2]

[2]I note the slightly reformulated version of the indorsement proffered by Mr Lawlor and considered in the course of determining the present issue. Among other things, that form of indorsement identifies the claim as being for ‘damages for breach of human rights and trauma’ and deletes the references to ‘injuries’ and ‘exemplary damages’.

Later the same day, Mr Lawlor was evidently advised that his documents had not been accepted for filing. The Court email states, relevantly –

The Prothonotary has reviewed your Writ and advises the following. This case is related to the assertions in the originating motion filed 26 August 2022. For similar reasons, I refuse to seal the writ but consider it appropriate to forward this writ with the originating motion for further consideration by a Judge.

By responding email on 8…

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 Lawlor v Langenheim

Details

AGLC: Lawlor v Langenheim [2022] VSC 591
Case: [2022] VSC 591
Decision Date: 4 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Lawlor v Langenheim, the applicant sought to file a writ that aimed to bring a claim against the Hollywood actress, Ruby Rose. The writ was generally indorsed, a term used to describe a writ that is not specifically tailored to the details of the claim, and this was the basis of the refusal by the Prothonotary to accept it for filing. The proposed proceeding was linked to a non-party discovery application related to the rapper Pitbull. The court had to determine whether such a proceeding would be irregular or an abuse of the court’s process.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the generally indorsed writ could be accepted for filing, given its association with a non-party discovery application that was seemingly unrelated to the main claim against Ruby Rose. The applicant argued that the writ should be accepted as it was a legitimate attempt to initiate proceedings. The court had to balance the principles of procedural fairness against the potential for abuse of the court's process.

The court found that there was no evidence presented to suggest that the filing of the writ or the proposed proceeding was irregular or an abuse of the court's process. The court reasoned that while generally indorsed writs are not ideal, they are not inherently irregular. The connection to the non-party discovery application was noted but did not render the proceeding irregular or abusive. Consequently, the court decided not to direct the Prothonotary to accept the writ for filing, leaving the matter open for further clarification and proper filing.

Orders