PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — whether a vexatious proceedings order should be made — where litigant had reagitated the same points on multiple occasions after proceedings in the Court of Appeal and rejection of special leave application — whether sufficient frequency of institution of proceedings for the purposes of s 8(1) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) — vexatious proceedings order made
[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 Proietti v Proietti
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Proietti v Proietti [2024] NSWCA 48
Case
[2024] NSWCA 48
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Proietti v Proietti*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an application by the respondents for a vexatious proceedings order against Mr Philip Proietti. The dispute concerned Mr Proietti's repeated attempts to litigate matters that had already been determined by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, and in respect of which an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court had been rejected.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether Mr Proietti's conduct met the threshold for making a vexatious proceedings order under section 8(1) of the *Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008* (NSW). This required the Court to determine if Mr Proietti had, with a certain frequency, instituted proceedings that were an abuse of process or were without reasonable grounds.
The Court reasoned that Mr Proietti had indeed reagitated the same points on multiple occasions, demonstrating a pattern of instituting proceedings that were without reasonable grounds and constituted an abuse of process. The Court noted the significant number of previous proceedings and applications that had been dismissed, highlighting the futility of further litigation on these matters. The Court applied the principles established in previous cases concerning vexatious litigants, emphasizing the need to balance the right of access to the courts with the protection of the public and the administration of justice from vexatious conduct.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal made an order pursuant to section 8(7) of the *Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008* (NSW), prohibiting Mr Philip Proietti from instituting any further proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, including in the Court of Appeal, against Mr Peter Proietti or the trustees for sale, concerning the matters that had been litigated in the numerous prior proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Pursuant to s 8(7) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW), order that Mr Philip Proietti is prohibited from instituting proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales including in the Court of Appeal against Mr Peter Proietti or the trustees for sale appointed by Kunc J in respect of the matters litigated in Proietti v Proietti [2022] NSWSC 875, the appeal therefrom (Proietti v Proietti [2022] NSWCA 234) and the following sets of proceedings: Proietti v Proietti [2022] NSWCA 268; Proietti v Proietti [2023] NSWCA 76; Proietti v Proietti [2023] NSWCA 132; Proietti v Proietti [2023] HCASL 15; Proietti v Proietti (No 3) [2023] NSWCA 199; Proietti v Proietti (No 4) [2023] NSWCA 251; and Proietti v Proietti (No 5) [2023] NSWCA 284.