Proietti v Proietti (No 3)

Link copied
Case Copied 15 min read

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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…

CaseChat AU logo

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
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
[2023] NSWCA 199
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceeding concerned an application by Mr Proietti to set aside orders made by the Supreme Court of New South Wales appointing trustees for sale. The application was brought pursuant to a *Teoh* order, which allows a party to seek to set aside an earlier judgment or order on the basis that it was obtained by fraud, or by a fundamental mistake of fact or law. The primary judge had dismissed Mr Proietti's application, and he appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal.

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.