McDonald v Attorney-General (SA) (No 4)

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia heard an appeal by the appellants against a declaration made by a single judge that they were vexatious litigants. The appellants sought to re-litigate issues and proceedings that had already been decided, based on their belief that those decisions were wrong and unjust. The Attorney-General for South Australia applied for and obtained orders declaring the appellants vexatious litigants, thereby restricting their ability to commence or continue legal proceedings without leave.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether the appellants' conduct amounted to vexatious litigation, and consequently, whether the declaration made by the primary judge was appropriate. This involved considering the appellants' history of litigation, their persistent attempts to reopen concluded matters, and whether their actions were an abuse of process, contrary to the fundamental principle of finality in legal disputes. The court also had to determine if the specific proceedings relied upon by the Attorney-General demonstrated a pattern of vexatious conduct.

The Full Court affirmed the principle of finality in litigation, emphasizing that once controversies are resolved, they are not to be reopened except in narrowly defined circumstances, such as through the appellate system or in cases of fraud. The court noted that doctrines like *res judicata* and issue estoppel prevent parties from raising issues that have already been finally decided. The appellants' determination to re-litigate past decisions, despite the finality of those judgments and the absence of any recognised grounds for reopening them, was found to constitute vexatious litigation. The court applied these principles to the extensive history of proceedings initiated by the appellants, concluding that their conduct demonstrated an abuse of process and a disregard for the finality of judicial decisions.

The Full Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the orders made by the primary judge, upholding the declaration that the appellants were vexatious litigants.