Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Potier v Attorney General in and for the State of New South Wales [2015] NSWCA 129 Hearing dates: 25 March 2015 Decision date: 13 May 2015 Before: Basten JA at [1];
Meagher JA at [31];
Leeming JA at [35]Decision: (1) Grant leave to rely on the Further Amended Summons dated 2 April 2015.
(2) Grant leave to appeal and, to the extent necessary, leave to proceed under the Felons Act.
(3) Dispense with the requirements of filing and service of the notice of appeal.
(4) Appeal allowed in part.
(5) Set aside order 1 made on 25 February 2014.
(6) Vary order 2 made on 25 February 2014 by adding the words “and any application under Part 7 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW)” so that it reads:
“That, pursuant to section 8(7)(a) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act, any proceedings already instituted by the defendant in New South Wales except his appeal proceedings pending in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal numbered 2005/14700 and any interlocutory proceedings in that appeal and any application under Part 7 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) be stayed.”Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – vexatious proceedings orders – whether available with respect to a person subject to the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW) – whether application for leave under Felons Act could require leave under Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – person in custody in relation to a serious indictable offence – application of requirement for leave with respect to all such persons – operation of Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW), s 4
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – vexatious proceedings orders – formulation of orders – need to consider temporal limit – need to consider proper scope – need to consider effect on defence of criminal proceedings – whether “blanket” orders desirable
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – overlapping statutes of same polity – reconciliation of potential conflict – avoiding circularity
WORDS AND PHRASES – “frequently” – Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) – “civil proceedings” – “person who is in custody as a result of … a serious indictable offence” – Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW)Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (Imp)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 474D, 580E
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), s 79; Pt 7
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 91
Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW), ss 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9
Freedom of Information Act 1989 (NSW)
Fugitive Offenders Act 1881 (Imp)
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 35
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 78
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth), s 7
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 14
Service and Execution of Process Act 1901 (Cth)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 71, 84, 101
Trade Marks Act 1994 (UK)
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW),…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Potier v Attorney General (NSW) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2015] NSWCA 129
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether a person subject to the *Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act* could be subject to vexatious proceedings orders, and whether an application for leave under the *Felons Act* could itself require leave under the *Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008* (NSW). The Court also considered the appropriate formulation of vexatious proceedings orders, including the need for temporal limits, proper scope, and the effect on the defence of criminal proceedings, particularly in light of the appellant being in custody for a serious indictable offence.
The Court engaged in statutory interpretation to reconcile the operation of the *Vexatious Proceedings Act* and the *Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act*, aiming to avoid circularity and give effect to both legislative regimes. The Court held that the *Vexatious Proceedings Act* applied to persons in custody for serious indictable offences, and that the requirement for leave under that Act was not circumvented by the *Felons Act*. The Court also determined that "blanket" vexatious proceedings orders were not desirable, and that such orders should be carefully formulated to consider their temporal scope and impact on ongoing criminal proceedings.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside one of the original orders and varying another to clarify that it included applications under Part 7 of the *Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001* (NSW). The Court granted leave to appeal and, to the extent necessary, leave to proceed under the *Felons Act*.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Grant leave to rely on the Further Amended Summons dated 2 April 2015.
(2) Grant leave to appeal and, to the extent necessary, leave to proceed under the Felons Act.
(3) Dispense with the requirements of filing and service of the notice of appeal.
(4) Appeal allowed in part.
(5) Set aside order 1 made on 25 February 2014.
(6) Vary order 2 made on 25 February 2014 by adding the words “and any application under Part 7 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW)” so that it reads:
“That, pursuant to section 8(7)(a) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act, any proceedings already instituted by the defendant in New South Wales except his appeal proceedings pending in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal numbered 2005/14700 and any interlocutory proceedings in that appeal and any application under Part 7 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) be stayed.”
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.