Lohe v Mansukhani - [2007] QSC 69

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Lohe v Mansukhani [2007] QSC 069

PARTIES:

CONRAD WILHELM LOHE
(applicant)
v
DAYAL HASSARAM MANSUKHANI
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS4770 of 2006

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

13 April 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 January 2007

JUDGE:

Mackenzie J

ORDER:

1. It is declared that Dayal Hassaram Mansukhani is a person who has frequently instituted and conducted vexatious proceedings in Australia within the meaning of those terms in s 6 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld).

2. It is ordered that the following proceedings already instituted by the respondent be stayed pursuant to s 6(2) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act2005 (Qld):

District Court of Queensland

(a)        D494 of 2005

(b)        D502 of 2005

(c)        D507 of 2005

(d)        D508 of 2005

(e)        D526 of 2005

(f)         That part of D603 of 2005 that relates to the first, second, fifth, sixth, and eighth to twelfth defendants

3.          It is ordered that the respondent, by himself and in a capacity or purported capacity as Attorney for any person or entity, be restrained from instituting any proceedings in any Queensland Court (apart from any appeal in this proceeding) without prior leave of a judge of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Queensland.

CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – JURISDICTION AND GENERALLY – GENERALLY – where respondent has history of commencing proceedings in the Magistrates, District and Supreme Court – where respondent instigated claims against various defendants including public officials and members of the judiciary – where claims and pleadings are incomprehensible, objectionable and disclose no reasonable cause of action – where applicant seeks the stay of proceedings not yet finalised – where applicant seeks respondent be declared a ‘vexatious litigant’ under the Vexatious Proceedings Act2005 (Qld) – whether jurisdiction should be exercised

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) s 124
Vexatious Proceedings Act2005 (Qld) s 5, s 6

COUNSEL:
Mr J M Horton for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:
Crown Solicitor for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent

MACKENZIE J: This is an application by the Crown Solicitor to have the respondent declared a vexatious litigant under the Vexatious Proceedings Act2005 (Qld).

Jurisdiction

The Crown Solicitor has standing to bring an application under s 5(1)(b). The Crown Solicitor relies on s 6(1)(a) which allows the court to make orders under s 6(2) including orders staying all or any part of any proceeding in Queensland already instituted by the person and an order prohibiting the person from instituting proceedings or proceedings of a particular type in Queensland, if the court is satisfied that the respondent has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australia.

The term “vexatious proceeding” is defined as follows in the Dictionary to the Act:

“vexatious proceeding includes—
(a)a proceeding that is an abuse of the process of a court or tribunal; and
(b)a proceeding instituted to harass or annoy, to cause delay…

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 Lohe v Mansukhani

Details

AGLC: Lohe v Mansukhani [2007] QSC 69
Case: [2007] QSC 69
Decision Date: 13 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Lohe v Mansukhani, the respondent, Dayal Hassaram Mansukhani, was being sued by the applicant, Lohe, for a declaration that Mansukhani was a vexatious litigant under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld). Mansukhani had a history of initiating numerous proceedings against various individuals, including public officials and members of the judiciary, with claims and pleadings that were deemed incomprehensible, objectionable, and lacking in any reasonable cause of action. The applicant sought a stay of proceedings not yet finalised and for Mansukhani to be declared a vexatious litigant.

The legal issues before the court included whether it should exercise its jurisdiction to declare Mansukhani a vexatious litigant and to stay the proceedings already instituted by him. The court had to consider the criteria outlined in section 6 of the Act, which defines a vexatious litigant as a person who has frequently instituted and conducted vexatious proceedings in Australia. The court also needed to decide whether Mansukhani's actions met the threshold for restraint from instituting any further proceedings without prior leave from a judge of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The court found that Mansukhani had frequently instituted and conducted vexatious proceedings in Australia, as evidenced by the numerous claims and pleadings he had made against various individuals. The court was satisfied that Mansukhani's actions met the criteria for being declared a vexatious litigant under section 6 of the Act. Consequently, the court declared that Mansukhani was a vexatious litigant and ordered that specific proceedings already instituted by him be stayed. Furthermore, the court restrained Mansukhani from instituting any proceedings in any Queensland court without prior leave of a judge of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The final orders included a declaration that Dayal Hassaram Mansukhani was a vexatious litigant, a stay of specific proceedings instituted by him, and a restraint on Mansukhani from instituting any further proceedings without prior leave from a judge of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Queensland.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. It is declared that Dayal Hassaram Mansukhani is a person who has frequently instituted and conducted vexatious proceedings in Australia within the meaning of those terms in s 6 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld).

2. It is ordered that the following proceedings already instituted by the respondent be stayed pursuant to s 6(2) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld):

District Court of Queensland

(a) D494 of 2005

(b) D502 of 2005

(d) D508 of 2005

(e) D526 of 2005

(f) That part of D603 of 2005 that relates to the first, second, fifth, sixth, and eighth to twelfth defendants

3. It is ordered that the respondent, by himself and in a capacity or purported capacity as Attorney for any person or entity, be restrained from instituting any proceedings in any Queensland Court (apart from any appeal in this proceeding) without prior leave of a judge of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Queensland.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Lohe v Mansukhani [2007] QSC 069
PARTIES:	CONRAD WILHELM LOHE (applicant) v DAYAL HASSARAM MANSUKHANI (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS4770 of 2006
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	13 April 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30 January 2007
JUDGE:	Mackenzie J
ORDER:	1. It is declared that Dayal Hassaram Mansukhani is a person who has frequently instituted and conducted vexatious proceedings in Australia within the meaning of those terms in s 6 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld). *2. It is ordered that the following proceedings already instituted by the respondent be stayed pursuant to s 6(2) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act2005* (Qld): District Court of Queensland (a) D494 of 2005 (b) D502 of 2005 (c) D507 of 2005 (d) D508 of 2005 (e) D526 of 2005 (f) That part of D603 of 2005 that relates to the first, second, fifth, sixth, and eighth to twelfth defendants** 3. It is ordered that the respondent, by himself and in a capacity or purported capacity as Attorney for any person or entity, be restrained from instituting any proceedings in any Queensland Court (apart from any appeal in this proceeding) without prior leave of a judge of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Queensland.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – JURISDICTION AND GENERALLY – GENERALLY – where respondent has history of commencing proceedings in the Magistrates, District and Supreme Court – where respondent instigated claims against various defendants including public officials and members of the judiciary – where claims and pleadings are incomprehensible, objectionable and disclose no reasonable cause of action – where applicant seeks the stay of proceedings not yet finalised – where applicant seeks respondent be declared a ‘vexatious litigant’ under the Vexatious Proceedings Act2005 (Qld) – whether jurisdiction should be exercised Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) s 124 Vexatious Proceedings Act2005 (Qld) s 5, s 6
COUNSEL:	Mr J M Horton for the applicant No appearance for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Crown Solicitor for the applicant No appearance for the respondent