Macatangay v State of New South Wales

[2012] NSWCA 374

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Macatangay v State of New South Wales [2012] NSWCA 374

Hearing dates:

On the papers

Decision date:

15 November 2012

Before:

Macfarlan JA; Sackville AJA; Tobias AJA

Decision:

Pursuant to s 8(7) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008:

(a) all proceedings in New South Wales already instituted by the applicant in matters Nos 20144 of 2005 and 269316 of 2005 ("the Matters") be stayed; and

(b) the applicant be prohibited from instituting any further proceedings in New South Wales relating to any of the claims or complaints made by her in the Matters.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - repetitious applications - vexatious proceedings orders

Legislation Cited:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008

Cases Cited:

Macatangay v State of New South Wales [2012] NSWCA 108
Macatangay v State of New South Wales [2012] NSWCA 341

Category:

Procedural and other rulings

Parties:

Miguela Alvarez Macatangay (Applicant)
State of New South Wales (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel: N/A
Solicitors: N/A

File Number(s):

20144 of 2005 or 269316 of 2005

 Decision under appeal 

Citation:

Macatangay v State of New South Wales [2007] NSWSC 57

Date of Decision:

2007-02-09 00:00:00

Before:

Grove J

File Number(s):

20144 of 2005

Judgment

1. THE COURT: On 25 October 2012, the Court dismissed a notice of motion filed by Mrs Macatangay on 8 October 2012 seeking leave to file a further application in the proceedings and once again relating to her claim that the Department of Education has, since 2002, prohibited her from working in any capacity in the New South Wales Education Teaching Service: Macatangay v State of New South Wales [2012] NSWCA 341.

1. The numerous applications which Mrs Macatangay has filed with the Court over the years generally relate to the dismissal by Grove J in 2007 of her Further Amended Statement of Claim pursuant to UCPR Rule 13.4. The history of the applications made by Mrs Macatangay, in all of which she has been unsuccessful, was narrated in this Court's judgments of 20 September 2010 and 16 April 2012 (Macatangay v State of New South Wales [2012] NSWCA 108).

1. In [6] of our judgment of 25 October 2012 we considered that the applications referred to in those judgments arguably fell within sub-paragraphs (a) and (c) of the definition of "vexatious proceedings" in s 6 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) (the Act). We also made reference to the power in s 8(4) of the Act of this Court to make a vexatious proceedings order of its own motion where it is satisfied that Mrs Macatangay has frequently instituted vexatious proceedings in Australia. We indicated at [8] of our judgment that we were minded to make such an order against Mrs Macatangay staying all proceedings in New South Wales already instituted by her in matters Nos 20144 of 2005 and 269316 of 2005 and, further, prohibiting her from instituting any further proceedings in New South Wales relating to or having any connection with any of the claims or complaints made by her in those matters.

1. However, before making such an order we considered that Mrs Macatangay was entitled to show cause why such an order should not be made. The Court therefore directed her, if she wished to do so, to file with it within 14 days of 25 October 2012 a written submission as to why the Court should not make a vexatious proceedings order in the terms referred to.

1. On 5 November 2012, Mrs Macatangay filed a submission purportedly pursuant to the Court's direction made on 25 October 2012. The submission which runs to 15 pages with numerous annexures seeks to once again argue her case that she was wrongly prohibited from employment by the Department in 2002; that there was no settlement of the proceedings which she instituted in the Industrial Relations Commission; and that the decision of Grove J was wrong and was a clear demonstration of an abuse and misuse of his Honour's power as an officer of the Court.

1. Without descending into the detail of her submission, it is fair to say that the various contentions contained in the document are precisely the same contentions that she has been advocating in the various proceedings that she has instituted since the decision of Grove J and in all of which she has been unsuccessful. Importantly, her further repetition of her complaints against the Department and the decision of Grove J is not a relevant response to the direction to show cause why a vexatious proceedings order should not be made again her in the terms foreshadowed at [8] of our judgment of 25 October 2012.

1. Section 8(1) of the Act provides, relevantly, that the Court may make a vexatious proceedings order if it is satisfied that Mrs Macatangay has frequently instituted vexatious proceedings in Australia. Section 6 defines the term "vexatious proceedings" to include, relevantly:

(a) proceedings that are an abuse of the process of a court ...

(b) ...

(c) proceedings instituted or pursued without reasonable grounds.

1. A "vexatious proceedings order" is defined in s 3(1) to mean an order under s 8 of the Act. Section 8(7) provides that the Supreme Court may rule any one of the following vexatious proceedings orders in relation to a person:

"(a)an order staying all or part of any proceedings in New South Wales already instituted by the person,

(b)an order prohibiting the person from instituting proceedings in New South Wales,

(c)any other order that the Court considers appropriate in relation to the person."

1. The history of this matter makes it patently clear that over a number of years Mrs Macatangay has instituted proceedings in New South Wales which are either an abuse of the process of the Court or which she has instituted and pursued without reasonable grounds. Her submission filed on 5 November 2012 goes over old ground and concludes with a plea that she be permitted to pursue her claim against the Department in her Amended Further Statement of Claim which was dismissed by Grove J pursuant to UCPR Rule 13.4. That rule relevantly empowers a court to dismiss proceedings where they are vexatious or disclose no reasonable cause of action or are an abuse of process of the court. It is apparent from her submission that Mrs Macatangay will continue, unless a vexatious proceedings order is made, to pursue the same claims as she has been making for some time and in respect of which her numerous applications relating to those claims have been dismissed in some cases on the ground that they constituted an abuse of the court's processes.

1. In the foregoing circumstances, the Court is satisfied that Mrs Macatangay has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australia which justifies the making of a vexatious proceedings order.

1. Accordingly, the Court orders pursuant to s 8(7) of the Act that all proceedings in New South Wales already instituted by Mrs Macatangay in matters Nos 20144 of 2005 and 269316 of 2005 be stayed and that she be prohibited from instituting any further proceedings in New South Wales relating to any of the claims or complaints made by her in those matters.

**********

Decision last updated: 15 November 2012