Quach v Horvarth

Case [2022] NSWCA 49


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Quach v Horvarth [2022] NSWCA 49
Hearing dates: 28 March 2022
Date of orders: 28 March 2022
Decision date: 28 March 2022
Before: Basten JA
Decision:

Dismiss the notice of appeal e-filed on 15 March 2022 as incompetent.

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – vexatious proceedings order – prohibition on commencement of fresh proceedings in specified matters – judicial review application dismissed in a specified matter – fresh claim for damages based on unlawfulness of same conduct – claim dismissed under vexatious proceedings order – notice of appeal dismissed as incompetent under vexatious proceedings order

Legislation Cited:

Medical Practice Act 1992 (NSW), Sch 1, cl 11

Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69

Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW), ss 8, 13

Cases Cited:

Health Care Complaints Commission v Quach (No 2) [2015] NSWCATOD 32

Health Care Complaints Commission v Quach [2015] NSWCATOD 2

Quach v Health Care Complaints Commission [2016] NSWCA 49

Quach v Horvarth [2021] NSWSC 1401

Quach v New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission [2016] NSWCA 10

Quach v New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission; Quach v New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal [2017] NSWCA 267

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: Michael Van Thanh Quach (Applicant)
Professor John Horvarth (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Applicant unrepresented

Solicitors:
Applicant unrepresented
File Number(s): 2022/74091
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction:
Common Law Division
Citation:

[2022] NSWSC 248

Date of Decision:
9 March 2022
Before:
Campbell J
File Number(s):
2021/123675

Judgment

  1. BASTEN JA: In 1998 Mr Quach applied to the Medical Board of New South Wales for registration as a medical practitioner. He was academically qualified, but there was an issue as to whether he suffered from a mental impairment. It appears that he was registered as an intern in September 1999, subject to conditions.

  2. On 19 January 1999, the President of the Medical Board, in accordance with the provisions of cl 11 of Sch 1 of the Medical Practice Act 1992 (NSW) (since repealed) advised that an inquiry would be held into the eligibility of Dr Quach to be registered under the provisions of the Act.

  3. He subsequently commenced practice, but was the subject of complaints to the Health Care Complaints Commission. The Commission in turn filed notices of complaint with the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NSW), Occupational Division, which was the successor to the Medical Tribunal. The complaints were upheld and, on 5 February 2015, the Tribunal made findings of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct. [1] On 21 April 2015 the Tribunal ordered that Dr Quach’s registration be cancelled, providing further that there be no application for review for a period of seven years from that date. An order prohibiting him from providing any health service was made. [2]

    1. Health Care Complaints Commission v Quach [2015] NSWCATOD 2.

    2. Health Care Complaints Commission v Quach (No 2) [2015] NSWCATOD 32.

  4. Mr Quach then commenced proceedings by way of summons in the…

Continue reading Quach v Horvarth

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Quach v Horvarth [2022] NSWCA 49
Case
[2022] NSWCA 49
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Quach, sought to appeal a decision of the primary judge who had dismissed a claim for damages. The claim was based on the alleged unlawfulness of conduct that had previously been the subject of a judicial review application brought by the appellant, which had been dismissed. The primary judge had dismissed the fresh claim for damages on the basis that it was prohibited by a vexatious proceedings order previously made against the appellant. The appellant then filed a notice of appeal against this dismissal.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the notice of appeal was competent, given the existence of the vexatious proceedings order. This involved considering whether the fresh claim for damages constituted a "proceeding" within the meaning of that order, and whether the appeal itself was a "proceeding" that was prohibited by the order.

Basten JA reasoned that the vexatious proceedings order, which prohibited the appellant from commencing any fresh proceedings in specified matters, extended to appeals arising from those matters. His Honour found that the claim for damages was a fresh proceeding in a specified matter, and therefore prohibited by the order. Consequently, the notice of appeal, which sought to challenge the dismissal of that prohibited proceeding, was itself an incompetent proceeding.

Accordingly, the notice of appeal filed on 15 March 2022 was dismissed as incompetent.

Orders

Orders of the court

Dismiss the notice of appeal e-filed on 15 March 2022 as incompetent.

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.