Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Proietti v Proietti (No 3) [2023] NSWCA 199 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 29 August 2023 Before: Leeming JA Decision: Notice of motion dated 24 July 2023 dismissed.
Catchwords: PROCEDURE – Teoh order – whether further application to set aside orders made appointing trustees for sale vexatious or an abuse of process – motion dismissed
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 63
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 46
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 13.4, 36.16
Cases Cited: D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1; [2005] HCA 12
Proietti v Proietti [2022] NSWCA 234
Proietti v Proietti [2022] NSWCA 268
Proietti v Proietti [2023] NSWCA 76
Proietti v Proietti [2023] NSWCA 132
Teoh v Hunters Hill Council (No 4) (2011) 81 NSWLR 771; [2011] NSWCA 324
Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Philip Proietti (Applicant)
Peter Proietti (First Respondent)
Ian Colwell Miller & Peter Joseph Dominello as Court Appointed Trustees (Second Respondent)Representation: Applicant in person
File Number(s): 2022/217751 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
-
LEEMING JA: Mr Philip Proietti and his brother Mr Peter Proietti are in dispute. They are registered owners as tenants in common in equal shares of property at Marsfield, which they inherited from their mother. Until relatively recently, Mr Philip Proietti has lived in the property. In January 2022, Mr Peter Proietti applied for trustees to be appointed to sell the property. Those orders were made on 7 July 2022 by the Equity Division of the Court constituted by Kunc J. According to Mr Philip Proietti, the property has been sold and settlement is to occur next month.
-
In the litigation I shall shortly describe, the applicant Mr Philip Proietti has invariably been the moving party, and I shall refer to him simply as Mr Proietti. Mr Proietti’s appeal from the order made on 7 July 2022 was dismissed by the Court of Appeal constituted by Mitchelmore JA, Basten and Griffiths AJJA on 14 October 2022: Proietti v Proietti [2022] NSWCA 234. A stay pending special leave was dismissed by the Court of Appeal constituted by Macfarlan JA on 1 December 2022: Proietti v Proietti [2022] NSWCA 268. On 9 March 2023, the High Court dismissed Mr Proietti’s application for special leave, saying that “[t]he decision of the Court of Appeal is plainly correct”: Proietti v Proietti [2023] HCASL 15. It is thereby established, conclusively, that the trustees appointed by order of the Supreme Court are entitled to sell the Marsfield property owned by the brothers.
-
An unsuccessful appeal, and an unsuccessful application for special leave, have not prevented Mr Proietti from bringing proceedings to set aside the order made on 7 July 2022. Far from it.
-
On 10 March 2023, the Supreme Court granted leave for a writ of possession to be issued in respect of the property. Mr Proietti thereafter sought a stay of the writ of possession, and the setting aside…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Proietti v Proietti (No 3) 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
- [2023] NSWCA 199
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether Mr Proietti's further application to set aside the orders appointing trustees for sale constituted a vexatious or abusive process. This required the court to consider the principles governing the finality of litigation and the circumstances in which a *Teoh* order may be invoked to revisit concluded matters.
Leeming JA, in dismissing the appeal, reasoned that the application to set aside the orders was an abuse of process. His Honour found that the grounds relied upon by Mr Proietti had either been previously considered and rejected by the court, or were not of a nature that would justify setting aside the orders under the *Teoh* principles. The court emphasised the importance of finality in legal proceedings and the high threshold required to disturb existing orders, particularly when the application appears to be a collateral attack on previous decisions or an attempt to re-litigate issues already determined.
The notice of motion dated 24 July 2023 was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Notice of motion dated 24 July 2023 dismissed.
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.