Martin v Vardanega - [2025] NSWSC 802

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Martin v Vardanega [2025] NSWSC 802
Hearing dates: 26 June 2025
Date of orders: 26 June 2025
Decision date: 26 June 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Cavanagh J
Decision:
(1) The proceedings against the first, second and third defendants are dismissed pursuant to r 13.4, Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (2005).
(2) The plaintiff is to pay the first, second, and third defendants’ costs.
(3) Pursuant to s 8 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW), I order that the plaintiff not be permitted to commence proceedings against the first, second and third defendants arising out of any matter relating to her earlier compensation claim or any matter related to the proceedings commenced in 2020 (2020/337173), 2022 (2022/295916 and 2022/296130) and 2025 (2025/80318), without leave of the Court.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – summary disposal – dismissal of proceedings – rr 13.4 and 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) – frivolous or vexatious proceedings – order made under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW)

Legislation Cited:
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW), ss 6, 8
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 13.4, 14.28

Cases Cited:
Dey v Victorian Railways Commission (1949) 78 CLR 62
Martin v Malouf [2021] NSWSC 415
Martin v Ross & Ors; Martin v Vardanega & Ors [2023] NSWSC 303
Potier v Attorney General in and for the State of New South Wales (2015) 89 NSWLR 284; [2015] NSWCA 129
Shaw v New South Wales [2012] NSWCA 102
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)
Stephen Vardanega (First Defendant)
Michael Roberts (Second Defendant)
Nicholas Studdert (Third Defendant)
Danny Feller SC (Fourth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Phillips (First, Second and Third Defendants)
Solicitors:
Plaintiff (self-represented)
Wotton Kearney (First, Second and Third Defendants)
DLA Piper (Fourth Defendant)

File Number(s): 2025/80318
Publication restriction: Nil

REVISED EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

This matter comes before me pursuant to a notice of motion filed on 11 April 2025 by the first, second and third defendants seeking orders that the proceedings be dismissed pursuant to r 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”) or, in the alternative, that the proceedings be struck out pursuant to UCPR, r 14.28.
In addition, the first, second and third defendants (“the defendants”) seek an order pursuant to s 8 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) (“the Act”), that the plaintiff be prohibited from instituting any proceedings against the defendants in New South Wales without leave of the Court.
On the application today, Ms Martin appeared unrepresented. She has been unrepresented throughout these proceedings and has been unrepresented in earlier similar proceedings commenced in this Court. She has the assistance of a friend at the bar table.
Mr Phillips of counsel appeared for the defendants.
At the commencement of the hearing, Ms Bulloch announced her appearance on behalf of the fourth defendant and asked to…

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 802
Case: [2025] NSWSC 802
Decision Date: 26 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Martin v Vardanega was brought before the court to address the issue of whether certain proceedings should be dismissed as frivolous or vexatious. The plaintiff, Martin, sought to bring claims against the defendant, Vardanega, but the court was required to consider whether these claims were without merit or were being pursued in a manner that was oppressive or burdensome to the defendant. The proceedings were held under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) and the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW). The court was tasked with interpreting and applying these legal frameworks to determine the appropriate course of action.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff's claims were frivolous or vexatious, and if so, whether the court should exercise its discretion to dismiss the proceedings under the relevant rules and legislation. The court had to consider the criteria for determining frivolous or vexatious proceedings, including whether the claims had no reasonable prospect of success and whether they were being pursued in a manner that was oppressive or burdensome to the defendant. Additionally, the court was required to assess whether an order under the Vexatious Proceedings Act was warranted, considering factors such as the conduct of the plaintiff and the impact of the proceedings on the defendant.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously examined the nature and conduct of the proceedings. It concluded that the claims brought by the plaintiff were indeed frivolous, as they lacked any reasonable prospect of success and were being pursued in a manner that was oppressive to the defendant. The court found that the plaintiff's conduct in bringing the claims was vexatious, as it unnecessarily burdened the defendant and wasted the court's resources. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the proceedings under the relevant rules and made an order under the Vexatious Proceedings Act, imposing costs on the plaintiff.

The final orders of the court included the dismissal of the plaintiff's proceedings as frivolous and vexatious, with the imposition of costs on the plaintiff in accordance with the Vexatious Proceedings Act. The court's decision underscored the importance of the principles governing the summary disposal of proceedings and the protection of defendants from oppressive litigation.

Orders