Mowen v Rockhampton Regional Council; Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd v Mowen

Mr. Mowen was involved in two court proceedings, one in the Supreme Court of Queensland and the other in the District Court of Queensland. In the Supreme Court, he was pursuing a defamation case against the Rockhampton Regional Council, while in the District Court, he was defending a debt claim by the Bendigo and Adelaide Bank. He also had a counterclaim against the Bendigo and Adelaide Bank in the District Court and named lawyers retained by the Rockhampton Regional Council in earlier Magistrates’ Court proceedings as defendants to the counterclaim. Mowen sought to have the District Court proceedings transferred to the Supreme Court and heard together with the Supreme Court case. The court had to decide if the proceedings should be joined and heard together.

The legal issues in the case included whether Mr. Mowen had a real prospect of succeeding on all or part of his claim in the Supreme Court, whether there was a need for a trial of the claim or part of the claim, whether to grant the Rockhampton Regional Council's cross-application to strike out all or various parts of the Statement of Claim, whether to grant the Rockhampton Regional Council's cross-application for further and better particulars of the Statement of Claim, and whether to grant the Rockhampton Regional Council's cross-application to have Mr. Mowen declared a vexatious litigant.

The court dismissed Mowen's application to have the District Court proceedings transferred to the Supreme Court and heard together with the Supreme Court case. It granted the Rockhampton Regional Council leave to apply for a vexatious proceedings order but dismissed the application itself. The court found that Mowen had no real prospect of succeeding on his defamation claim, and therefore, there was no need for a trial. The court also found that the Rockhampton Regional Council's cross-application to strike out all or various parts of the Statement of Claim was unnecessary as there was no triable issue. The court found that the Rockhampton Regional Council's cross-application for further and better particulars of the Statement of Claim was also unnecessary as there was no need to discuss the particulars sought. Finally, the court found that Mowen's proceedings were not vexatious, and therefore, the Rockhampton Regional Council's cross-application to have him declared a vexatious litigant was dismissed.

The court ordered that the applications brought by Mr. Mowen be dismissed, and he was ordered to pay the costs of each respondent. Leave was granted to the Council to apply for a vexatious proceedings order, but the application was dismissed, and there was no order for costs in relation to that application. Judgment was entered for the Defendant against Mr. Mowen in the Supreme Court proceedings. Mr. Mowen was ordered to pay the costs of the Defendant in the proceedings and of the applications brought by the Defendant, except for the costs of the application for vexatious proceedings orders. The court also made supplementary orders regarding the costs of the proceedings.