SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
PARTIES:
CONRAD WILHELM LOHE
(applicant)
v
GEOFFREY JAMES BIRD
(respondent)FILE NO/S:
S 7790 of 2003
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
27 February 2004
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
3 November 2003
JUDGE:
McMurdo J
ORDER:
The respondent is declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to s 3 of Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 (Qld).
CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – COURTS GENERALLY – QUEENSLAND – Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 – interpretation – "instituted vexatious legal proceedings" – "frequently and without reasonable grounds" – whether proceedings by respondent were vexatious – whether improper purpose of proceedings needs to be proved
Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld), s 164
Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 (Qld), s 2, s 3, s 8
Attorney-General v Michael [1999] WASCA 181
Attorney-General v Hunter [2002] WASC 189
Attorney-General v Wentworth (1988) 14 NSWLR 481
Jones v Skyring [1992] 66 ALJR 810
Re Cameron [1996] 2 Qd R 218
Re Vernazza [1960] 1 QB 197COUNSEL:
P J Flanagan SC, with J Horton, for the applicant
The respondent appeared on his own behalf
SOLICITORS:
Crown Solicitor
The respondent appeared on his own behalf
J:McMURDO The Crown Solicitor for the State of Queensland applies to have the respondent declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to the Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 (Qld). A person so declared is unable to institute, take or continue any legal proceedings without the leave of the Supreme Court or a judge thereof, and proceedings instituted or taken by such a person without leave are invalid and of no force or effect in law: s 8 of that Act.
The power to make the declaration is conferred by s 3 which provides as follows:
“3 Declaration of vexatious litigants upon application by public officials
(1) If the Supreme Court or a Judge thereof is satisfied that a person has frequently and without reasonable ground instituted vexatious legal proceedings or procured vexatious subpoena, summonses to a witness, warrants or process to be issued or that any other person acting in concert with such a person has without reasonable ground instituted vexatious legal proceedings or procured vexatious subpoena, summonses to a witness, warrants or process to be issued, the Supreme Court or such Judge may after hearing such person and, if the case require it, such other person, or giving him, her or them an opportunity of being heard, by its, his or her order, declare such person and such other person to be a vexatious litigant.
(2) An order under this section shall be made only upon the application of the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, the Crown Solicitor or the registrar of the Supreme Court at Brisbane, Rockhampton, Townsville or Cairns in the State.
(3) The Supreme Court or a Judge thereof may make an order under subsection (1) so as to contain such conditions or qualifications or to have such limited application as appear to it, him or her to be appropriate and…
Continue reading Lohe v Bird
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Lohe v Bird [2004] QSC 23
- Case
- [2004] QSC 23
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue the court had to address was the interpretation of the phrase “vexatious legal proceedings” within the context of the Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 (Qld). The court considered the various factors that could render legal proceedings vexatious, such as the lack of reasonable grounds for claims, the persistence in making similar allegations despite prior rejections, and the abuse of court processes. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the improper purpose of the proceedings needed to be proven or if the frequency and lack of reasonable grounds alone were sufficient for a declaration of vexatious litigant.
In its reasoning, the court found that Mr Bird's legal actions met the criteria for being vexatious. The court examined the frequency of Mr Bird's legal proceedings and the lack of reasonable grounds for his claims. The court held that the improper purpose behind the proceedings did not need to be explicitly proven, as the frequent and groundless nature of the litigation was sufficient to classify Mr Bird as a vexatious litigant. Consequently, the court declared Mr Bird to be a vexatious litigant under section 3 of the Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 (Qld).
The final order of the court was that Mr Bird is declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to section 3 of the Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 (Qld). This declaration imposes certain conditions and restrictions on Mr Bird's ability to institute further legal proceedings without prior approval from the court.
Orders
Orders of the court
The respondent is declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to s 3 of Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 (Qld).
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
The power to make the declaration is conferred by s 3 which provides as follows:“3 Declaration of vexatious litigants upon application by public officials(1) If the Supreme Court or a Judge thereof is satisfied that a person has frequently and without reasonable ground instituted vexatious legal proceedings or procured vexatious subpoena, summonses to a witness, warrants or process to be issued or that any other person acting in concert with such a person has without reasonable ground instituted vexatious legal proceedings or procured vexatious subpoena, summonses to a witness, warrants or process to be issued, the Supreme Court or such Judge may after hearing such person and, if the case require it, such other person, or giving him, her or them an opportunity of being heard, by its, his or her order, declare such person and such other person to be a vexatious litigant.(2) An order under this section shall be made only upon the application of the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, the Crown Solicitor or the registrar of the Supreme Court at Brisbane, Rockhampton, Townsville or Cairns in the State.(3) The Supreme Court or a Judge thereof may make an order under subsection (1) so as to contain such conditions or qualifications or to have such limited application as appear to it, him or her to be appropriate and may upon the application of an official specified in subsection (2) or of the person declared to be a vexatious litigant vary an order so made by varying or rescinding the conditions or qualifications or limits to which such an order is for the time being subject.(4) Where an order by which any person is declared to be a vexatious litigant contains any condition or qualification that continues to have effect or has limited application the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to that person subject to the order.” “Legal proceedings” means any cause, matter, action, suit, or proceeding of any kind within the jurisdiction of any court or tribunal and includes any proceeding taken in connection with any such legal proceeding pending before any court or tribunal: s 2. The court or tribunal in this context is a Queensland one: Re Cameron (1996) 1 Qd R 218. The principal question for determination is whether the respondent, Mr Bird, has frequently and without reasonable ground instituted vexatious legal proceedings. The expression “vexatious legal proceedings” is undefined. In Re Cameron, Fitzgerald P at 220 described such proceedings in these terms:“It is also necessary to decide what makes legal proceedings vexatious. Although there are sometimes statutory indications, the broad test potentially concerns such factors as the legitimacy or otherwise of the motives of the person against whom the order is sought, the existence or lack of reasonable grounds for the claims sought to be made, repetition of similar allegations or arguments to those which have already been rejected, compliance with or disregard of the court’s practices, procedures and rulings, persistent attempts to use the court’s process to circumvent its decision or other abuse of process, the wastage of public resources and funds, and the harassment of those who are the subject of the litigation which lacks reasonable basis: see, for example, Attorney General v Wentworth (1988) 14 N.S.W.L.R. 481; Jones v Skyring (1992) 66 A.L.J.R. 810; Jones v Cusack (1992) 66 A.L.J.R. 815, and Attorney-General (N.S.W.) v West (N.S.W. Common Law Division No 16208 of 1992, 19 November 1992, unreported).”