Public Trustee v Gittoes aka Caldar

In Public Trustee v Gittoes, also known as Caldar, the plaintiff, the Public Trustee, sought to have the defendant, Gittoes, declared a vexatious litigant. The dispute arose from the Public Trustee's administration of a deceased estate, which had been significantly hindered by the defendant's actions. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The Public Trustee contended that Gittoes' repeated and unjustified legal challenges had caused unnecessary delays and costs in the estate's administration, invoking the principle established in Cherry v Boultbee.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Gittoes' conduct constituted vexatious litigation, warranting a declaration under the Supreme Court Act 1986. The court had to consider the nature and extent of Gittoes' actions, including the frequency and merit of the litigation, to determine if the principle in Cherry v Boultbee applied. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether Gittoes' litigation was devoid of any reasonable cause or whether there were legitimate grounds for the challenges.

The court found that Gittoes' persistent and baseless legal actions significantly obstructed the estate's administration, leading to considerable delays and costs. The court emphasised that the vexatious litigant declaration was intended to protect the administration of estates and other legal processes from unjustified interference. By applying the principle from Cherry v Boultbee, the court concluded that Gittoes' conduct warranted such a declaration. Consequently, the court declared Gittoes a vexatious litigant, prohibiting them from initiating further legal proceedings without the court's permission. This decision aimed to streamline the administration of the estate and prevent further unwarranted litigation.