Lohe v Sargent

[2001] QSC 386

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Lohe v Sargent [2001] QSC 386

PARTIES:

CONRAD WILHELM LOHE
(applicant)
v
JOHN GARY SARGENT
(respondent)

FILE NO:

S6670 of 2001

DIVISION:

Trial Division

DELIVERED ON:

16 October 2001

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 September 2001

JUDGE:

Mullins J

ORDER:

The respondent, John Gary Sargent, is declared to be a vexatious litigant.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – declaration of vexatious litigant – whether circumstances justify a declaration – whether proceedings instituted “frequently” and “without reasonable grounds”

Acquisition of Land Act 1967
Judicial Review Act 1991
Vexatious Litigants Act 1981

Re Cameron [1996] 2 QdR 218
Jones v Cusack (1992) 66 ALJR 815
Re Vernazza [1960] 1 QB 197

COUNSEL:

MO Plunkett for the applicant
The respondent in person

SOLICITORS:

Crown Solicitor for the applicant

1. MULLINS J: Conrad Wilhelm Lohe (“the applicant”) is the Crown Solicitor for the State of Queensland and applies for an order pursuant to s 3(1) of the Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 (“the Act”) declaring John Gary Sargent (“the respondent”) to be a vexatious litigant. The respondent who appears in person opposes the application.

Proceedings in respect of Land Court claim

1. In July 1994 the respondent purchased Lot 3 on RP229165 in the County of Churchill Parish of Rosewood.  The property was subject to an easement resumed for the Queensland Electricity Commission and SEQEB on 16 October 1975 for the purpose of erecting two poles to support overhead electricity transmission lines. 

1. On 10 October 1996 the respondent lodged a claim for compensation in the sum of $50,000 against SEQEB and Powerlink with the Land Court which purported to be pursuant to the Acquisition ofLand Act 1967. The respondent’s claim for compensation related to damage which he alleged was caused to his property within and outside the area of the easement.

1. On 28 November 1996 SEQEB and Powerlink filed an application in the Land Court for an order that the respondent’s claim for compensation be dismissed on the basis that the Land Court had no jurisdiction, as the respondent had no right to claim compensation under the Acquisition ofLand Act 1967, or that the respondent’s claim for compensation was frivolous or vexatious, as the respondent was not the owner of the property, when the easement was resumed. The application was returnable on 5 December 1996 which was a callover day in the Land Court on which the respondent’s claim for compensation was due to be called over.

1. The application of SEQEB and Powerlink was heard by the President of the Land Court, Mr JJ Trickett, on 5 December 1996.  The respondent was unrepresented, as has been the case in all subsequent hearings.  During the course of that hearing the respondent explained:

“SEQEB placed a tower on top of a hill, removed vegetation, it’s solidic clay, contains salt, erosion increased rapidly.  They realised their mistake in 1987, removed the power pole, repositioned them on either side of the hill and just left it in its eroded state and to…