MICHAEL -v- WESTERN AUSTRALIAN ATTORNEY GENERAL [2006] WASCA 123

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2006] WASCA 123
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:1/2006	Heard:	27 MARCH 2006
Coram:	STEYTLER P WHEELER JA BUSS JA	Delivered:	27/06/06
No of pages:	18	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for extension of time within which to appeal refused
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	SHAWKY MICHAEL WESTERN AUSTRALIAN ATTORNEY GENERAL
Catchwords:	Appeal from order declaring appellant a vexatious litigant Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA)
Case References:	Attorney General v Michael & Anor [2005] WASC 203 Attorney General v Michael [1999] WASCA 181 Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4 Crown Solicitor for the State of Western Australia v Michael & Anor; unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980425; 30 July 1998 Donald Campbell & Co Ltd v Pollak [1927] AC 732 Gallo v Dawson (No 2) (1992) 66 ALJR 859 Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172 Attorney General v Shaw [2004] WASC 280 Beamish v The Queen [2005] WASCA 62 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Bride [2004] WASC 177 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Ridout [2004] WASC 136 Dempster v National Companies & Securities Commission (1993) 9 WAR 215 Hunter v Commissioner of Police [2003] WASC 10 Jackamarra v Krakouer (1988) 195 CLR 519 Kwa v City of Stirling, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 990619; 16 March 1999 Lancaster v The Queen [1989] WAR 83 Livesey v New South Wales Bar Association (1983) 151 CLR 288 Morgan v Wanneroo Smash Repairs Pty Ltd [2003] WASCA 41 Peck v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 20 Re Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia & Anor; Ex parte Skyring (1996) 70 ALJR 321 Re Monitronix Ltd (1987) 5 ACLC 1063

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : MICHAEL -v- WESTERN AUSTRALIAN ATTORNEY GENERAL [2006] WASCA 123 CORAM : STEYTLER P

WHEELER JA

BUSS JA

HEARD : 27 MARCH 2006 DELIVERED : 27 JUNE 2006 FILE NO/S : CACV 1 of 2006 BETWEEN : SHAWKY MICHAEL

Appellant

AND

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : LE MIERE J

Citation : ATTORNEY GENERAL -v- MICHAEL & ANOR [2005] WASC 203

File No : CIV 1374 of 2003

Catchwords:

Appeal from order declaring appellant a vexatious litigant - Turns on own facts

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA)

Result:

Application for extension of time within which to appeal refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Mr C P Wayte

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : State Solicitor's Office

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Attorney General v Michael & Anor [2005] WASC 203
Attorney General v Michael [1999] WASCA 181
Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4
Crown Solicitor for the State of Western Australia v Michael & Anor, unreported; SCt of WA; Library…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Michael v Western Australian Attorney General and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] WASCA 123
Decision Date: 27 JUNE 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Michael v Western Australian Attorney General was an appeal brought before the court against an order that had declared the appellant, Michael, a vexatious litigant. The dispute originated from a series of actions initiated by Michael, which the court deemed to be repetitive, frivolous, or without any reasonable prospect of success. The Western Australian Attorney General sought the declaration, arguing that Michael's actions were causing unnecessary burden on the judicial system. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which was tasked with determining the validity of the vexatious litigant declaration against Michael.

The central legal issues before the court were whether Michael's conduct constituted that of a vexatious litigant under the relevant legislation, and if the court's declaration was justified and proportionate. The court had to carefully examine the nature, frequency, and merit of Michael's previous litigations to ascertain if they met the stringent criteria for such a declaration. Additionally, the court needed to balance Michael's right to access the courts against the need to protect the judicial system from unnecessary strain.

In its judgment, the court found that Michael's history of litigation, marked by repetitive and meritless claims, warranted the declaration of him as a vexatious litigant. The court emphasised that the declaration was not a punitive measure but a protective one, intended to safeguard the judicial system from undue burden. The court concluded that the order was both valid and necessary given the evidence presented, thus dismissing the appeal. As a result, the application for an extension of time within which to appeal was also refused, reinforcing the finality of the lower court's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for extension of time within which to appeal refused

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.