Legal Research
Cases
Quach v Horvarth

Quach v Horvarth

Case [2021] NSWSC 1401 1 November 2021

Judicial Review

Abuse of Process

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Quach v Horvarth [2021] NSWSC 1401
Hearing dates: 6 October 2021
Date of orders: 1 November 2021
Decision date: 01 November 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison AsJ
Decision:
The Court orders:
(1) The amended summons filed 27 May 2021 is dismissed.
(2) The timetable for submissions on costs is as follows:
(i) The defendant is to file and serve any affidavits and submissions on costs within 14 days (15 November 2021).
(ii) The plaintiff is to file and serve any affidavits and submissions on costs within 28 days (29 November 2021).
(ii) To minimise costs, I will deal with the issue of costs on the papers in chambers.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Judicial Review - Uniform Civil Procedure Rules – Frivolous and vexatious proceedings – No reasonable cause of action – Abuse of process – Proceedings dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 1997 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 14
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 91
Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth), s 31A
Health Care Complaints Act 1993 (NSW), Div 1 s 7
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW)
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), s 14
Medical Practice Act 1992 (NSW), ss 3, 4, 5, 12, 14, 15, 16, 56, 129, 189, Schedule 1 cl 9, Schedule 1 cl 11
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 13.4

Cases Cited:
Arthur Yates & Co Pty Ltd v Vegetable Seeds Committee (1945) 72 CLR 37
Australian Vaccination Network Inc v Health Care Complaints Commission [2012] NSWSC 110
Bodruddaza v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2007) 228 CLR 651
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor [1996] HCA 25;186 CLR 541
Cudgegong Australia Pty Ltd v Transport for New South Wales [2018] NSWSC 929
Gedeon v NSW Crimes Commission [2008] HCA 43
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (1964) 112 CLR 125
J J Richards & Sons Pty Ltd v Fair Work Australia [2012] FCAFC 53
Kable v State of New South Wales (2012) 168 FLR 1
Kruger v The Commonwealth of Australia (1997) 190 CLR 1
Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520
McClintock v The Commonwealth (1947) 75 CLR 1
O’Brien v Bank of Western Australia Ltd [2013] NSWCA 71
R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; ex parte Ozone Theatres(Aust) Ltd (1949) 78 CLR 389
Randren House Pty Ltd v Water Administration Ministerial Corporation (No 4) [2019] NSWLEC 5
Sinkovichv Attorney General of New South Wales (2013) 85 NSWLR 783
Spencer v Commonwealth (2010) 241 CLR 118

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Dr Michael Quach (Plaintiff)
Professor John Horvath (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
D. Hume (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Self-represented (Plaintiff)
Makinson d’Apice Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2021/123675
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HER HONOUR: This matter involves a notice of motion filed by the defendant on 4 June 2021 seeking summary judgment.
The plaintiff is Dr Michael Van Thanh Quach (“Dr Quach”). The defendant is Professor John Horvath (“Professor Horvath”). Dr…

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 Quach v Horvarth

Details

AGLC: Quach v Horvarth [2021] NSWSC 1401
Case: [2021] NSWSC 1401
Decision Date: 01 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Quach v Horvarth involved a judicial review application filed by the respondent against the applicant. The primary dispute centred on the dismissal of the applicant's proceedings by the respondent, which the applicant sought to challenge. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant argued that the dismissal of their proceedings was unjust and sought an order to reinstate the proceedings or for the court to grant leave to amend the statement of claim. The respondent contended that the applicant's proceedings were frivolous and vexatious, lacking any reasonable cause of action and constituting an abuse of the court process.

The court was tasked with determining whether the dismissal of the applicant's proceedings was justified. Specifically, the court had to consider if the proceedings were frivolous and vexatious, lacked reasonable cause of action, and whether there had been an abuse of the court process. The court also needed to assess whether the applicant had a valid argument for reinstating the proceedings or for leave to amend the statement of claim. The respondent argued that the applicant's claims were baseless and served only to harass and delay the respondent.

In assessing the matter, the court found that the applicant's proceedings indeed lacked any reasonable cause of action and were frivolous and vexatious. The court determined that the applicant had no valid grounds for their claims and had engaged in an abuse of the court process. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review and found that there was no basis to reinstate the proceedings or to grant leave to amend the statement of claim. The court's decision was based on the clear absence of any substantive legal or factual basis for the applicant's claims.

Orders