Purins v Alpine Constructions Pty Ltd - [2008] SASC 11

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
PURINS v ALPINE CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD
[2008] SASC 11
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Debelle
18 January 2008
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - POWERS OF COURT
Appeal against order of Full Industrial Court - application to dismiss appeal summarily - appellant seeking to re-litigate claim for workers' compensation - a number of earlier leave applications discussed - clear beyond argument then appeal will fail - appeal dismissed.

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Application to declare appellant a vexatious litigant - repeated applications to re-open claim for workers' compensation - applications had all failed - appellant declared vexatious litigant.
Supreme Court Rules Rule 290(1)(h); Supreme Court Act 1935 s 39, referred to.
Mayne Market Pty Ltd v Temple [1999] SASC 271, applied.

PURINS v ALPINE CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD
[2008] SASC 11
Civil

DEBELLE J. This is an application for an order summarily dismissing an appeal against an order made by the Full Industrial Relations Court on 9 December 2007. It is made by the respondent to this appeal. In the alternative, the respondent seeks an order for security for costs.
Rule 290(1)(h) invests this Court with power summarily to dismiss an appeal if it is obvious that it cannot succeed. That power may be exercised by a single judge of the court. As a general rule, a judge would not exercise the power unless the appeal is so defective in form and substance that it must be struck out either as failing to invoke the jurisdiction of the Full Court or clearly is an abuse of process: Mayne Market Pty Ltd v Temple [1999] SASC 271. In my view, the Court will also exercise that power where it is clear beyond argument that the appeal must fail.
In this case, the respondent has very strong grounds to support its application, and it is appropriate to make an order dismissing the appeal. I set out those grounds. The appellant is a former employee of the respondent. He injured himself in the course of his employment on 20 September 1978. On 27 August 1981, Olsson J, then a member of the Industrial Court, made orders by consent on applications by the appellant dated 28 July 1980 and 5 March 1981, whereby the appellant sought weekly payments of workers compensation benefits on account of the injury which he had suffered on 20 September 1978. The transcript of those proceedings records that the orders were made in full and complete settlement of all claims for compensation by the appellant. The judgment of Olsson J is recorded in an order drawn up in the Workers Compensation Court in 1981. The appellant was paid the amount due to him pursuant to that order.
The respondent has since made a number of applications to recover workers compensation in respect of the same event and the same injury. The first was made on 18 September 1984 and…

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 Purins v Alpine Constructions Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Purins v Alpine Constructions Pty Ltd [2008] SASC 11
Case: [2008] SASC 11
Decision Date: 18 January 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Purins v Alpine Constructions Pty Ltd involves an appeal against an order made by the Full Industrial Court of South Australia. The appellant, Purins, sought to re-litigate a workers' compensation claim which had already been determined. The respondent, Alpine Constructions Pty Ltd, applied to have the appeal dismissed summarily and to declare the appellant a vexatious litigant due to the repeated failed applications to re-open the claim. The legal issues before the court involved the powers of the court to summarily dismiss an appeal and the circumstances under which a litigant could be declared vexatious.

The court held that the appellant's appeal was clearly without merit, as it sought to re-litigate a claim that had already been conclusively determined by the Full Industrial Court. The appellant's previous leave applications to re-open the claim had all been unsuccessful, indicating that there was no basis for a successful appeal. The court further noted that the appellant's conduct in repeatedly attempting to re-open the claim demonstrated a pattern of vexatious litigation. The court exercised its discretion under the relevant statutes to declare the appellant a vexatious litigant and dismissed the appeal.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the appellant was declared a vexatious litigant. The court's decision emphasised the importance of finality in legal proceedings and the court's power to prevent repetitive and frivolous litigation. This ruling serves as a deterrent to litigants who may seek to abuse the legal system through persistent and baseless claims.

Orders