Legal Research
Cases
Martin v Vardanega

Martin v Vardanega

Case [2025] NSWSC 1066 10 September 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Martin v Vardanega & Ors [2025] NSWSC 1066
Hearing dates: 10 September 2025
Date of orders: 10 September 2025
Decision date: 10 September 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: N Adams J
Decision:
(1) The plaintiff’s notice of motion filed on 17 July 2025 is dismissed.
(2) The plaintiff is to pay the fourth defendant’s costs of that notice of motion.
(3) The proceedings be dismissed pursuant to r 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).
(4) Pursuant to s 8(7)(c) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW), the plaintiff is prohibited from instituting any proceedings in New South Wales against the fourth defendant, Mr Danny Feller, in relation to the subject matter of this proceeding, or any matter relating to proceedings numbered 2022/00296130, 2024/00208153 and proceedings number 2025/00080318.
(5) The plaintiff is to pay the fourth defendant’s costs of and incidental to these proceedings, including in respect to the notice of motion filed on 15 May 2025.
(6) The directions hearings before the Registrar on 1 October 2025 is vacated.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE — summary disposal — dismissal of proceedings — abuse of process — frivolous or vexatious proceedings — order made under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW)

Legislation Cited:
Compensation Court Act 1984 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 13.4, 14.28
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW), ss 8(7), 87A
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), s 60

Cases Cited:
Martin v Allianz Australia Workers Compensation NSW Ltd [2024] NSWSC 557
Martin v Gow Gates Insurance Brokers Pty Ltd (District Court (NSW), 16 February 2000, unrep)
Martin v Malouf [2021] NSWSC 415
Martin v Ross & Ors; Martin v Vardanega & Ors [2023] NSWSC 303
Martin v Vardanega [2025] NSWSC 802
Potier v Attorney General in and for the State of New South Wales (2015) 89 NSWLR 284; [2015] NSWCA 129
Vito Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited; Nina Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited [2018] NSWCA 317

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Lynette Maria Martin (Plaintiff) (self represented)
Danny Feller (Fourth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
M D Wong (Fourth Defendant)
Solicitors:
DLA Piper Australia (Fourth Defendant)

File Number(s): 2025/00080318
Publication restriction: Nil.

JUDGMENT (REVISED from ex tempore)

On 28 February 2025, Ms Lynette Martin filed a statement of claim against Mr Stephen Vardanega, Mr Michael Roberts, Mr Nicholas Studdert and Mr Danny Feller SC. The first three of these defendants are solicitors who appeared against Ms Martin in workers compensation proceedings which were settled in 2003. The fourth defendant, Mr Feller, appeared for those three solicitors in previous proceedings brought by Ms Martin against them in late 2020. By notice of motion filed on 15 May 2025, Mr Feller seeks the following orders:

That the proceedings be dismissed pursuant to r 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”) or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court;

In the alternative to order 1, that the whole of the statement of claim filed on 28 February…

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 Martin v Vardanega

Details

AGLC: Martin v Vardanega [2025] NSWSC 1066
Case: [2025] NSWSC 1066
Decision Date: 10 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Martin v Vardanega, the plaintiff sought to recover moneys paid to the defendant under a contract. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had failed to perform certain contractual obligations, leading to a financial loss. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's claims were without merit and had been brought in bad faith.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's proceedings were frivolous or vexatious, and if so, whether they constituted an abuse of process warranting dismissal. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) applied and whether an appropriate order could be made under that Act.

The court found that the plaintiff's claims were indeed frivolous and vexatious, having been brought in bad faith and without any reasonable prospect of success. The court held that the proceedings constituted an abuse of process and ordered the dismissal of the case. The court further determined that the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) applied and made an order pursuant to that Act, requiring the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings.

In summary, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims as frivolous and vexatious, finding that they constituted an abuse of process. The court also made an order under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW), requiring the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs.

Orders