Pascoe v Liprini

Case [2012] NSWSC 345


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Pascoe v Liprini [2012] NSWSC 345
Hearing dates:24 March 2012
Decision date: 24 March 2012
Jurisdiction:Equity Division - Duty List
Before: White J
Decision:

Application dismissed

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - parties - abuse of process - conduct of parties - vexatious litigant - prohibited from instituting proceedings in New South Wales without leave of the court, s 8(7)(b) Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 - application for stay of a writ for possession made ex parte on a Saturday - same application made and rejected previously - no material change of circumstance - no proper basis for application - no question of principle
Legislation Cited: Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Scott Darren Pascoe (Plaintiff)
Allan Stephen Liprini (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
Defendant in person
Solicitors:
N/a
File Number(s):2011/201820

Judgment

  1. HIS HONOUR:This application is brought on Saturday afternoon by Dr Allan Liprini. He seeks a stay of what I am told is a writ of possession issued on 8 March 2012 by which he is required to give up possession of a property at Sylvania Waters. I am told that the writ has been obtained by Dr Liprini's trustee in bankruptcy. I was told that a sequestration order was made in the Federal Magistrates Court on 3 September 2010 and Mr Scott Pascoe was appointed as trustee in bankruptcy.

  1. Dr Liprini says that the writ should be stayed, as I understand it, on two, or perhaps three, grounds. First, he says that he has an application pending in the Federal Magistrates Court. It is due to be heard on Thursday, 29 March 2012. He is seeking an order that his bankruptcy be annulled.

  1. Secondly, he says that he was made bankrupt as the result of criminal behaviour on the part of his brother, the solicitors who acted for him in earlier litigation, and the trustee in bankruptcy.

  1. Thirdly, he says that if he is required to vacate the property, he will lose personal possessions including papers which are necessary for him to continue various pieces of litigation.

  1. He informed me that he had earlier made the same application for a stay of the writ of possession to Ball J. On 8 March 2012 Ball J, when sitting as duty judge, dismissed that application. Dr Liprini handed up a copy of his Honour's reasons from which I ascertained that an order was made by Adamson J on 5 December 2011 that Dr Liprini be prohibited from instituting proceedings in New South Wales without leave of the court. That order was made pursuant to s 8(7)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008.

  1. It appears from her Honour's reasons that on 1 April 2011 Dr Liprini sought a stay of the bankruptcy administration and an annulment of the sequestration order. That application was dismissed on 17 May 2011.

  1. It appears also from her Honour's reasons that on 16 September 2011 Dr Liprini filed a further application seeking a stay of the bankruptcy administration and certain preservation and other orders in relation to personal property he claimed he owned. That application was dismissed by Yates J in the Federal Court on 7 October 2011.

  1. Adamson J found that the latter proceedings were vexatious.

  1. There is no proper basis put forward as to why I should stay the writ of possession, even if the same application had not been made and rejected by Ball J on 8 March 2012. As it is, that application having been made and rejected, and there being no apparent material change of circumstances, the making of this fresh application is an abuse of process. The application also required leave, which was not sought. The fact that the application was made ex parte on a Saturday only adds to the abuse.

  1. I order that the application be dismissed. There are no costs to be paid.

Details
AGLC
Pascoe v Liprini [2012] NSWSC 345
Case
[2012] NSWSC 345
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pascoe, the appellant, brought proceedings against Liprini, the respondent, seeking a writ for possession of a property in New South Wales. The dispute arose from a dispute over the ownership of a property. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 applied to the proceedings, and if so, whether the appellant had a proper basis for seeking a stay of the writ for possession. The appellant argued that a material change of circumstance had occurred, justifying the application for a stay. However, the court found that there was no proper basis for the application, as there had been no material change in circumstances since the previous application was rejected. The court further held that there was no question of principle involved in the matter.

The court considered the appellant's conduct in making the application for a stay of the writ for possession, noting that the same application had been made and rejected previously. The court held that the appellant's conduct amounted to an abuse of process, and that the appellant was a vexatious litigant. As such, the appellant was prohibited from instituting proceedings in New South Wales without the leave of the court, pursuant to section 8(7)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008. The court found that the appellant had no proper basis for the application, and that there was no material change in circumstances since the previous application was rejected. The court rejected the application for a stay of the writ for possession, and found that there was no question of principle involved in the matter. The court dismissed the appeal, and the writ for possession remained in effect.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.