Mathews v Cooper

Case [2017] QCA 322

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Mathews v Cooper & Ors [2017] QCA 322

PARTIES:

RUSSELL GORDON HAIG MATHEWS
(appellant)
v
GREGORY RICHARD COOPER
(first respondent)
THE CORP OF THE SYNOD OF THE DIOCESE OF BRISBANE
ABN 90 006 976 186
(second respondent)
JOHN LESLIE MORGAN
(third respondent)
DOUGLAS PORTER
(fourth respondent)
HENRI ELIAS RANTALA
(fifth respondent)
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(sixth respondent)
THE UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND
(seventh respondent)
ST JOHN’S COLLEGE COUNCIL
(eighth respondent)
PHILLIP ASPINALL
(ninth respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 5112 of 2017
SC No 3025 of 2017
SC No 5449 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:


Supreme Court at Brisbane - [2017] QSC 64 (Jackson J)

DELIVERED ON:

22 December 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers

JUDGES:

Gotterson and Morrison JJA and Bond J

ORDERS:

1.   The appeal is dismissed.

2.   The appellant is to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS: JURISDICTION, POWERS AND GENERALLY – VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS, PROCEEDINGS AND RELATED MATTERS – VEXATIOUS LITIGANT – where the appellant was the plaintiff in four Supreme Court proceedings – where the first respondent brought an application for orders preventing the appellant from commencing proceedings without leave of the Court – where the learned primary judge granted that application and stayed the proceedings on foot – where the learned primary judge declared the appellant to be a vexatious litigant – where the learned primary judge considered relevant procedural history and determined that the claims were vexatious because of the nature of the claims, number of defendants and relief claimed – whether the proceedings were vexatious – whether the appellant is a vexatious litigant according to the Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 (Qld) – whether the primary judge correctly exercised his discretion when ordering that the proceedings be stayed and the appellant be prevented from bringing further claims without leave of the court

Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld), s 6

Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) v Newcastle City Council (2006) 226 CLR 256; [2006] HCA 27, followed
Brisbane City Council v Mathews [2006] QSC 25, related
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited
Mathews v Morgan & Ors [2005] QSC 222, related
Mathews v State of Queensland [2015] FCA 1488, related
R v Mathews[2010] QCA 196, related
Re Cameron [1996] 2 Qd R 218; [1996] QCA 37, followed
Ridgeway v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 19; [1995] HCA 66, considered
Rowe v Schultz[2016] QCA 59, cited

COUNSEL:

No appearance by the appellant, the appellant’s submissions were heard on the papers
No appearance by the respondents, the respondents’ submissions were heard on the papers

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Crown Solicitor (Brisbane) for the first, fifth and sixth respondents
K&L Gates for the second, third, eighth and ninth respondents
Minter Ellison for the fourth…

Continue reading Mathews v Cooper

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Mathews v Cooper [2017] QCA 322
Case
[2017] QCA 322
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mathews v Cooper, the appellant, Mathews, was the plaintiff in four Supreme Court proceedings. The first respondent, Cooper, brought an application for orders preventing Mathews from commencing proceedings without leave of the Court. The learned primary judge granted that application, stayed the proceedings, and declared Mathews to be a vexatious litigant. The court was required to determine whether the proceedings were vexatious and whether Mathews was a vexatious litigant under the Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 (Qld). The court also needed to assess whether the primary judge correctly exercised his discretion when ordering the proceedings to be stayed and prohibiting Mathews from bringing further claims without leave of the court.

The court examined the procedural history of Mathews and concluded that the claims were vexatious due to the nature of the claims, the number of defendants, and the relief claimed. The court highlighted Mathews' litigious history over the past two decades, which included instituting proceedings against the State and others, raising claims with no prospect of success or conducted in abuse of the processes of the courts concerned. The court found that Mathews had escaped the discipline that usually flows from costs orders made against him and had been exempted from any liability to pay court fees for the numerous applications he had filed. The court also noted that Mathews had made spurious allegations of bias against the judicial officers and scandalous and baseless accusations against judges of this Court and many others. The court concluded that the orders sought by the State were well justified and would serve to protect it from a continuation of Mathews' litigious harassment, avoid public expense and resources devoted to defending his litigation, and prevent further waste of limited court resources.

Mathews' appeal was dismissed, and he was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant is to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis.

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

No separate contention was developed in respect of this ground, and it need not be dealt with further.Conclusion In Mathews v State of Queensland,[104] Reeves J described what he termed “Mr Mathews’ unfortunate litigious history”:[105]“It can be seen from these conclusions and the above review of Mr Mathews’ litigious history over the past two decades that he has repeatedly instituted proceedings against the State and others, raising a variety of claims which either have no prospect of success, or have been conducted in abuse of the processes of the courts concerned, or both. In the process, as is often the case with impecunious litigants in person, he has escaped the discipline that usually flows from the costs orders that have been made against him and, perversely, been exempted from any liability to pay court fees for the numerous applications he has filed. In addition, most of this litigation has been littered with spurious allegations of bias against the judicial officers who have had the misfortune to have to deal with an aspect of it, and scandalous and baseless accusations against judges of this Court and many others. The invective contained in Mr Mathews’ supporting affidavit in this proceeding (see paras 40–45 of [28] above), the observations of Fryberg J in the penultimate paragraph of his decision (at [103] above), the observations of Logan J in his decision (at paragraph 6 of [113] above) and those of McMurdo P in her decision (at [112] above) all provide examples of this propensity. This sorry history lends support to Perram J’s observations that “frequently enough, the vexatious are betrayed out of their own mouths“: see Gargan at [9]. Having regard to this litigious history, I consider the orders sought by the State are well justified. They will serve to protect it from a continuation of Mr Mathews’ litigious harassment, avoid the public expense and resources that have to be devoted to defending his litigation, and, at the same time, ensure that the limited resources of this Court and other Australian courts are not further wasted having to deal with it.”[104][2015] FCA 1488.[105][2015] FCA 1488, at [134]. Those remarks mirror those made by Fryberg J in 2006, in respect of Mr Mathews’ proceedings against the Brisbane City Council:[106]“The features of the proceedings to which I have been referred generally are in my view accurately summarised by Mr Peden. There is a joinder of multiple defendants without any basis for joinder; there are allegations of bias against judges which are completely unsubstantiated (and I should add that the allegations made orally before me today included allegations of bias against the lady who is now the Chief Judge of the District Court and also against the lady who is the Governor); there is the making of hopeless claims; there are unparticularised allegations of deceit and fraud; there are exaggerated damages claims; there is non-compliance with Court proceedings and in particular a failure to deliver complying pleadings; and finally, there is bringing of claims in respect of which it is not possible to demonstrate the suffering of any loss.It might be thought that this is in some way related to Mr Mathews’ disability, but as he himself asserts, that is not the case. He has placed before the Court evidence from a psychologist indicating that he is quite capable of managing his own affairs.”[106]Brisbane City Council v Mathews [2006] QSC 25, at 8-9.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.