Lohe v Tait - [2002] QSC 399

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Lohe v Tait [2002] QSC 399
PARTIES:	CONRAD WILHELM LOHE (applicant) v WILLIAM PETER TAIT (respondent)
FILE NO:	S5757/02
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	4 December 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATES:	13, 19 August 2002
JUDGE:	Wilson J
ORDERS:	*1. That William Peter Tait be declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to s 3 of the Vexatious Litigants Act* 1981 (Qld); 2. That the applications for decisions on the papers without oral hearings filed by the respondent on 12 July 2002 and 5 August 2002 be dismissed**
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – application for declaration that respondent is a vexatious litigant – whether circumstances justify a declaration – whether “vexatious” proceedings instituted “frequently” and “without reasonable grounds” PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – ]URSIDICTION AND GENERALLY – where application brought in Brisbane rather than Townsville – where Supreme Court in Brisbane has jurisdiction to deal with the application – whether the proceedings should be transferred to Townsville – consideration of factors that need to be taken into account in deciding whether proceedings should be transferred to another registry PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – where respondent filed applications for decisions without oral hearings – where requirements for service were not met – whether applications could be dealt with by the Court CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – where respondent claimed the Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 (Qld) was unconstitutional and invalid – where respondent did not put forward submissions or evidence in support of the alleged invalidity claims – whether Court could proceed hearing the matter in spite of s. 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s. 78B Peaceful Assembly Act 1992 (Qld) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r. 33, r. 49, r. 490 Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 (Qld), s. 3, s. 8 Attorney-General (NSW) v West NSW Common Law Division No 16208 of 1982, 19 November 1992, mentioned Attorney-General v Wentworth (1988) 14 NSWLR 481, mentioned Jones v Cusack (1992) 66 ALJR 815, considered Jones v Skyring (1992) 66 ALJR 810, considered Amrit Lal Narain v Parnell (1986) 9 FCR 479, considered Re Cameron [1996] 2 Qd R 218, considered
COUNSEL:	P J Flanagan for the applicant No appearance for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	The Crown Solicitor for the applicant No appearance for the respondent

WILSON J: There are three applications before the Court, all in proceeding S5757/02:
(i) originating application by Conrad Wilhelm Lohe (the Crown Solicitor) filed on 25 June 2002 that William Peter Tait be declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to s 3 of the Vexatious Litigants Act 1981;
(ii) application by Mr Tait filed on 12 July 2002 proposing decisions without an oral hearing - principally that the Crown Solicitor’s application be struck out and service set aside, and directions including that the Crown Solicitor’s application be transferred to Townsville;
(iii) further application by Mr Tait filed on 5 August 2002 for a decision without an oral hearing - seeking orders…

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 Tait

Details

AGLC: Lohe v Tait [2002] QSC 399
Case: [2002] QSC 399
Decision Date: 4 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lohe v Tait, the matter was brought before the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Lohe, sought a declaration that the defendant, Tait, is a vexatious litigant. The dispute involved whether Tait's actions constituted vexatious litigation under the Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 (Qld). Additionally, the plaintiff argued that Tait had instituted proceedings frequently and without reasonable grounds. The court was also asked to consider whether the proceedings should be transferred from Brisbane to Townsville and whether Tait's applications for decisions without oral hearings could be dealt with despite non-compliance with service requirements. Furthermore, Tait claimed that the Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 (Qld) was unconstitutional and invalid, though he did not provide submissions or evidence in support of this claim.

The court had to decide several key legal issues. Firstly, whether Tait's actions amounted to vexatious litigation as defined by the Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 (Qld). Secondly, whether the Supreme Court in Brisbane had the jurisdiction to hear the application and whether the proceedings should be transferred to Townsville. Thirdly, whether Tait's applications for decisions without oral hearings could be considered despite the non-compliance with service requirements. Finally, whether the court could proceed with the hearing given Tait's unconstitutionality claims without supporting submissions or evidence.

The court found that Tait's actions did indeed constitute vexatious litigation as he had instituted proceedings frequently and without reasonable grounds. It was determined that the Supreme Court in Brisbane had the jurisdiction to hear the application and that the proceedings should remain in Brisbane. The court ruled that Tait's applications for decisions without oral hearings could be dealt with, despite the non-compliance with service requirements. The court also proceeded with the hearing despite Tait's unconstitutionality claims, as he did not provide any evidence or submissions to support these claims. The court made the necessary declaration and dismissed Tait's applications.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That William Peter Tait be declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to s 3 of the Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 (Qld);

2. That the applications for decisions on the papers without oral hearings filed by the respondent on 12 July 2002 and 5 August 2002 be dismissed

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.