McCardle v McCardle

Case [2017] WADC 27

McCARDLE -v- McCARDLE [2017] WADC 27



DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2017] WADC 27
Case No:APP:81/20156 JANUARY 2017
Coram:GETHING DCJ3/03/17
PERTH
45Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal dismissed
Orders made under the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA)
PDF Version
Parties:ROXANNE MARIE McCARDLE
MICHAEL THOMAS McCARDLE

Catchwords:
Appeal from Magistrates Court
Denial of procedural fairness
Whether a denial of procedural fairness should result in the decision being set aside
Whether appellant should be declared a vexatious litigant

Legislation:
Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 s 17
Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA) s 4

Case References:
Agapis v Birmingham DCJ [2013] WASC 329
Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40; (2000) 203 CLR 172
Armstrong v Saxby [2016] WADC 87
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321
Bennett v Carruthers [2010] WASCA 131
Brocklehurst v Wolinski [2015] WADC 36
Butler v Bennett [2007] WADC 107
Buttarelli v Perpetual Ltd [2013] WASCA 254
Cameron v Cole [1944] HCA 5; (1944) 68 CLR 571
Cox v Journeaux (No 2) [1935] HCA 48; (1935) 52 CLR 713
Dincer v Giancristofaro [2015] WADC 49
Duckworth v Water Corporation [2012] WASC 30
Erujin Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2010] WASC 326
Faulkner v Bluett [1981] FCA 3; (1981) 52 FLR 115
Fletcher v Westpac [2012] WASCA 154
Frigger v Lean [2015] WASC 125
Glew v White [2012] WASCA 138
House v R [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
Jones v Darkan Hotel [2014] WASCA 133
L v L [2003] FMCAfam 549
Laurent v Fates [2015] WASCA 226
Lourey v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2012] WASCA 112
Manonai v Burns [2011] WASCA 165
McCardle v McCardle [2013] WADC 182
McCardle v McCardle [2014] HCASL 213
McCardle v McCardle [2014] WASCA 129
Michael Mischin MLC, Attorney General for Western Australia v Tey [2015] WASC 146
Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australia Planning Commission [2004] WASCA 149; (2004) 29 WAR 273
Norbis v Norbis [1986] HCA 17; (1986) 161 CLR 513
Pelechowski v NSW Land and Housing Commission [2000] FCA 233
Rana v The University of South Australia [2008] FCA 1903
Re Mr P G Cockram; Ex Parte Tey [2012] WASC 248
Re Mr P G Cockram; Ex parte Tey [2013] WASCA 104
Rowe v Stoltze [2013] WASCA 92
Sheraz Pty Ltd v Vegas Enterprises Pty Ltd [2015] WASCA 4
Shilkin v Taylor [2011] WASCA 255
Simonsen v Legge [2010] WASCA 238
Spencer v The Commonwealth [2010] HCA 28; (2010) 241 CLR 118
Stead v State Government Insurance Commission [1986] HCA 54; (1986) 161 CLR 141
Swansdale Pty Ltd v Whitcrest Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 129(S)
Tey v Michael Mischin MLC, Attorney General for Western Australia [No 2] [2015] WASCA 243
Woolworths Ltd v Commissioner of Police [2013] WASC 413

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CIVIL
LOCATION : PERTH CITATION…

Continue reading McCardle v McCardle

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
McCardle v McCardle [2017] WADC 27
Case
[2017] WADC 27
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involves a decision made by the Magistrates Court of Western Australia in relation to the appellant, McCardle, who was found to have engaged in vexatious litigation. The respondent, also McCardle, sought to have the appellant declared a vexatious litigant under the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA). The appellant contested this, arguing that the court had denied them procedural fairness in the original proceedings. The central legal issue before the court was whether the denial of procedural fairness warranted the setting aside of the Magistrates Court's decision, and if the appellant should indeed be declared a vexatious litigant.

In considering the appeal, the court examined the principles of procedural fairness and the criteria for declaring a vexatious litigant. The court found that while procedural fairness is a fundamental requirement in legal proceedings, the appellant had not demonstrated that the denial of procedural fairness was so significant as to warrant setting aside the Magistrates Court's decision. The court also found that the appellant's history of litigious behaviour, including multiple frivolous claims and repeated attempts to sue the same respondents, met the statutory criteria for being declared a vexatious litigant. The appellant's repeated attempts to undermine the legal process and harass the respondents were noted by the court as indicative of vexatious behaviour.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Magistrates Court's decision to declare the appellant a vexatious litigant. The court made orders under the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA), limiting the appellant's ability to commence proceedings in certain circumstances without the court's permission. The court concluded that the appellant's conduct warranted such restrictions to protect the legal system from unnecessary and frivolous litigation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

Orders made under the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA)

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.