Praljak v Bond University Limited - [2024] QSC 45

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Praljak v Bond University Limited [2024] QSC 45

PARTIES:

ADRIAN PRALJAK
(plaintiff)

v
BOND UNIVERSITY LIMITED

(defendant)

FILE NO:

BS 5369 of 2021

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

25 March 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 February 2024

JUDGE:

Sullivan J

ORDER:

The order of the Court will be as follows:

1. The Statement of Claim filed 2 November 2023 is struck out pursuant to r 171 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules and the inherent power of the Court.

2.   The proceeding is dismissed pursuant to the inherent power of the Court.

3. Pursuant to s 5(2) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act, the defendant has leave to apply to the Court for a vexatious proceedings order in relation to the plaintiff.

4. Pursuant to s 6(2)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act, the plaintiff is prohibited from instituting proceedings in a Queensland State Court or Queensland State Tribunal against:

a.    the defendant; or

b.   any current or former employee, officer or Council member of the defendant,

          without prior leave of the Court.

5. To the extent necessary, the plaintiff is given leave to appeal these orders of 25 March 2024 to the Court of Appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – STRIKING OUT – where the defendant seeks to have the Amended Statement of Claim struck out – where the defendant seeks to have the proceeding dismissed – whether it is appropriate in the circumstances to strike out the Amended Statement of Claim – whether it is appropriate in the circumstances to dismiss the proceedings

PROCEDURE – STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – POWERS AND GENERALLY – VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS – where the defendant seeks leave to apply to the Court for a vexatious proceedings order under Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld) against the plaintiff – where the defendant seeks an order that the plaintiff be prohibited from commencing proceedings in the jurisdiction of Queensland against the defendant and any employee, officer, Council member or student of the Defendant without leave of the Court - whether discretion should be exercised to make vexatious proceedings orders

Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth),
s 46PO(3A)(a)

Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s 604
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 2.26
Industrial Relations (Tribunal) Rules 2011 (Qld), r 45(3)(a)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5, r 16, r 22,
r 149, r 171, r 371, r 444, r 668

Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld), s 5, s 6, s 10, s 11
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)

Althaus v Australia Meat Holdings Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 221, considered
Brisbane City Council v Russell Gordon Haig Mathews [2006] QSC 025, cited
Cooper v Mbuzi [2012] QSC 105, cited
Jorgensen v Jorgensen [2016] QSC 193, considered
Markan v Bar Association of Queensland [2015] QCA 128, considered
Mbuzi v Griffith University (2014) 323…

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 Praljak v Bond University Limited 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: [2024] QSC 45
Decision Date: 25 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Praljak v Bond University Limited, the plaintiff sought to pursue legal action against the defendant, Bond University Limited. The nature of the dispute involves the plaintiff's attempt to file an Amended Statement of Claim, which the defendant sought to have struck out and the proceeding dismissed. Additionally, the defendant requested leave to apply for a vexatious proceedings order against the plaintiff under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld), and an order prohibiting the plaintiff from instituting proceedings against the defendant or associated entities without leave of the Court.

The legal issues before the court were whether it was appropriate to strike out the Amended Statement of Claim, dismiss the proceeding as an abuse of process, and grant the defendant leave to apply for a vexatious proceedings order. The court examined the procedural compliance of the plaintiff's filings under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR) and assessed whether the plaintiff's actions constituted an abuse of process and if the plaintiff qualified as a vexatious litigant.

The court held that the Amended Statement of Claim did not meet the requirements of the UCPR, as it was filed without leave and failed to disclose any tenable claim. The plaintiff had not attempted to produce a compliant Statement of Claim after the original was struck out. The court also noted the plaintiff's submissions indicating an inability to produce an acceptable Statement of Claim, which supported the conclusion that the proceeding was an abuse of process. Consequently, the court dismissed the proceeding and granted the defendant leave to apply for a vexatious proceedings order, prohibiting the plaintiff from instituting proceedings against the defendant or associated entities without leave of the Court.

The final orders of the court were to strike out the Amended Statement of Claim, dismiss the proceeding, grant the defendant leave to apply for a vexatious proceedings order, prohibit the plaintiff from instituting further proceedings without leave of the Court, and allow the plaintiff leave to appeal the orders to the Court of Appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The order of the Court will be as follows:

1. The Statement of Claim filed 2 November 2023 is struck out pursuant to r 171 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules and the inherent power of the Court.

2. The proceeding is dismissed pursuant to the inherent power of the Court.

3. Pursuant to s 5(2) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act, the defendant has leave to apply to the Court for a vexatious proceedings order in relation to the plaintiff.

4. Pursuant to s 6(2)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act, the plaintiff is prohibited from instituting proceedings in a Queensland State Court or Queensland State Tribunal against:

a. the defendant; or

b. any current or former employee, officer or Council member of the defendant,

without prior leave of the Court.

5. To the extent necessary, the plaintiff is given leave to appeal these orders of 25 March 2024 to the Court of Appeal.

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

In Robertson v Hollings,[9] Keane JA (as his Honour then was) observed:“…litigation is not a learning experience. The Courts do not permit litigants, even unrepresented litigants, to prosecute claims which cannot proceed fairly to the other parties.”[9]Robertson v Hollings (Imagination Television Ltd) [2009] QCA 303 at [11] per Keane JA.(iv) Conclusion on dismissal of the proceeding I am satisfied that it is appropriate in the circumstances of this case to dismiss the current proceedings as an abuse of process pursuant to the inherent power of the Supreme Court. My reasoning for this conclusion is as follows. First, it is fundamental to the bringing of a claim in the Supreme Court that it be accompanied by a Statement of Claim that complies with the UCPR. This is recognised by r 22 of the UCPR, which identifies that a Statement of Claim must accompany a Claim when filed. The purpose of such a pleading is succinctly identified in the general requirements of r 149 of the UCPR. The pleading must be as brief as the nature of the case permits, and must contain a statement of all the material facts on which the plaintiff relies. It performs the role of disclosing whether there is a tenable cause of action being put forward and allows a defendant to understand and respond fairly to the case that has been brought against it. In the current proceeding, there has never been a document which has met this requirement of the UCPR. Secondly, the original Statement of Claim filed in the Supreme Court on 11 May 2021 was struck out under r 171 of the UCPR on 9 June 2021 by Williams J. It was wholly defective. Since that strike out on 9 June 2021, there had been no attempt by the plaintiff to produce a Statement of Claim and seek leave for the filing of such a Statement of Claim, prior to the filing by the defendant, on 25 October 2023, of an application for dismissal of the proceeding. The plaintiff, in effect, did nothing to seek to prosecute the current proceeding, in circumstances where the original Statement of Claim had been struck out as wholly defective. The filing of the Notice of Appeal provided no excuse for this non-prosecution. The bringing of an appeal does not operate as a stay on the proceeding. I note that the Notice of Appeal itself was also struck out and the appeal later dismissed, in part, for want of prosecution. Thirdly, when the most recent purported Statement of Claim was produced on 2 November 2023, it was simply filed in the registry of the Supreme Court without any leave having been sought and provided. The order of Williams J had been clear that leave was required before any document could stand as a Statement of Claim. The document, in any event, in no way functioned as a Statement of Claim, inter alia, because it did not plead material facts disclosing any tenable claim. It has been struck out for the reasons set out above. Fourthly, the plaintiff has made submissions consistent with his being unable to produce an acceptable Statement of Claim. At the hearing of this application, the plaintiff variously submitted, in relation to the content of the purported Statement of Claim filed on 2 November 2023, that he had “done the best that I can do to say what is a civil legal cause of action, what is a criminal legal cause of action…” and “I’ve done the best job that I can do in the past and currently and I submit that it is in the interests of justice - in the public’s best interest and - and this case for natural justice and to restore the - to correct the past, current and maybe ongoing miscarriage of justice.” Those submissions were broadly similar to statements made by the plaintiff in his written response to the defendant’s r 444 letter.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Praljak v Bond University Limited [2024] QSC 45
PARTIES:	ADRIAN PRALJAK (plaintiff) v BOND UNIVERSITY LIMITED (defendant)
FILE NO:	BS 5369 of 2021
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	25 March 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9 February 2024
JUDGE:	Sullivan J
ORDER:	The order of the Court will be as follows: 1. The Statement of Claim filed 2 November 2023 is struck out pursuant to r 171 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules and the inherent power of the Court. 2. The proceeding is dismissed pursuant to the inherent power of the Court. 3. Pursuant to s 5(2) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act, the defendant has leave to apply to the Court for a vexatious proceedings order in relation to the plaintiff. 4. Pursuant to s 6(2)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act, the plaintiff is prohibited from instituting proceedings in a Queensland State Court or Queensland State Tribunal against: a. the defendant; or b. any current or former employee, officer or Council member of the defendant, without prior leave of the Court. 5. To the extent necessary, the plaintiff is given leave to appeal these orders of 25 March 2024 to the Court of Appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – STRIKING OUT – where the defendant seeks to have the Amended Statement of Claim struck out – where the defendant seeks to have the proceeding dismissed – whether it is appropriate in the circumstances to strike out the Amended Statement of Claim – whether it is appropriate in the circumstances to dismiss the proceedings PROCEDURE – STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – POWERS AND GENERALLY – VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS – where the defendant seeks leave to apply to the Court for a vexatious proceedings order under Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld) against the plaintiff – where the defendant seeks an order that the plaintiff be prohibited from commencing proceedings in the jurisdiction of Queensland against the defendant and any employee, officer, Council member or student of the Defendant without leave of the Court - whether discretion should be exercised to make vexatious proceedings orders Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), s 46PO(3A)(a) Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s 604 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 2.26 Industrial Relations (Tribunal) Rules 2011 (Qld), r 45(3)(a) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5, r 16, r 22, r 149, r 171, r 371, r 444, r 668 Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld), s 5, s 6, s 10, s 11 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) Althaus v Australia Meat Holdings Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 221, considered Brisbane City Council v Russell Gordon Haig Mathews [2006] QSC 025, cited Cooper v Mbuzi [2012] QSC 105, cited Jorgensen v Jorgensen [2016] QSC 193, considered Markan v Bar Association of Queensland [2015] QCA 128, considered Mbuzi v Griffith University (2014) 323…