Prefumo v Bradley [No 3] - [2013] WASC 56

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: PREFUMO -v- BRADLEY [No 3] [2013] WASC 56

CORAM: CORBOY J

HEARD: 20 DECEMBER 2012

DELIVERED : 28 FEBRUARY 2013

FILE NO/S: CIV 1924 of 2010

BETWEEN: LOUIS MARCEL ANGELO GILBERT PREFUMO
Plaintiff
AND
ARRIADNE MARIE NOELLE BRADLEY
Defendant

Catchwords:

Vexatious proceedings - Application under the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA) to stay proceedings - No new principles - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA), s 4(1)

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: In person
Defendant: In person

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: In person
Defendant: In person

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

Prefumo v Bradley [2011] WASC 251
Prefumo v Bradley [No 2] [2012] WASC 76
Prefumo v Sutton [2011] WASC 151
Vollaire (Sutton) v Prefumo [2011] WADC 59

CORBOY J:

The application

Mr Prefumo alleges that his sister, Ms Bradley, defamed him by statements that she made to unidentified persons at the Osborne Park Adult Community Mental Health Clinic (the Osborne Clinic) and to Mr Prefumo's former spouse, Ms Sutton. The detail of Mr Prefumo's allegations and the issues that are raised by his claim were explained in Prefumo v Bradley [2011] WASC 251 and Prefumo v Bradley [No 2] [2012] WASC 76.
Ms Bradley has applied under s 4(1) of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA) (the Act) for an order staying the whole of the proceedings commenced by Mr Prefumo. She also seeks an order prohibiting Mr Prefumo from instituting further proceedings without the leave of a court or tribunal.
I have concluded that Ms Bradley's application should be dismissed having regard, in particular, to the findings that were made in Prefumo v Bradley and Prefumo v Bradley [No 2] - that Mr Prefumo's claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action and was not vexatious or frivolous or an abuse of process.

The grounds on which the application was made

Ms Bradley made three affidavits that were relevant to her application. She referred to the decision of Sleight DCJ in Vollaire (Sutton) v Prefumo [2011] WADC 59 in her first affidavit made on 10 August 2012. That decision concerned an application made by Ms Sutton for a declaration and orders under s 4 of the Act. The circumstances in which Ms Vollaire made her application and his Honour's decision are considered later in the reasons.
Ms Bradley stated in her second affidavit, also made on 10 August 2012, that:
(a)she believed that there was no merit in the claim made by Mr Prefumo and his claim failed to disclose a cause of action (par 2);
(b)Mr Prefumo had been unable to substantiate any 'facts of Law or Malice in any of his allegations' over a period of 25 months (par 3);
(c)Mr Prefumo had delayed proceedings by bringing new allegations against Ms Bradley 'instead of providing to the Courts Facts of Malice stated to the Mental Health which is Qualified Privilege' (par 4);
(d)Mr Prefumo had relied…

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.

Continue reading Prefumo v Bradley [No 3]

Details

AGLC: Prefumo v Bradley [No 3] [2013] WASC 56
Case: [2013] WASC 56
Decision Date: 28 FEBRUARY 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, the case of Prefumo v Bradley [No 3] was brought before the court. The dispute between the parties involved an application by the defendant, Bradley, to stay the proceedings brought by the plaintiff, Prefumo. The application was made under the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA), seeking to halt the ongoing litigation on the grounds that it was vexatious. The underlying matter pertained to allegations of defamation and breach of privacy, with Prefumo pursuing claims against Bradley for statements made in the media and elsewhere.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the proceedings brought by Prefumo qualified as vexatious under the criteria set out in the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA). The court was required to consider whether the litigation was being pursued in bad faith, whether it was causing unnecessary hardship to the defendant, and whether the proceedings were being used as a means to harass or oppress the defendant. The court had to weigh these factors in the context of the specific facts of the case and the evidence presented by both parties.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the application to stay the proceedings was not successful. The court found that the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA) did not introduce any new principles but required the application of existing legal principles to the specific circumstances of each case. The court emphasised that the determination of whether proceedings were vexatious was a fact-intensive inquiry that relied heavily on the particular facts and evidence presented. The court concluded that while the proceedings may have caused some hardship to the defendant, they did not meet the threshold for being deemed vexatious. The court dismissed the application to stay the proceedings, allowing the litigation to continue.

The court did not make any specific orders beyond dismissing the application to stay the proceedings. The litigation between Prefumo and Bradley will proceed as originally commenced, with the plaintiff continuing to pursue their claims against the defendant for defamation and breach of privacy.

Orders