Re Application by Geoffrey James Bird

[2019] QSC 148

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Re Application by Geoffrey James Bird  [2019] QSC 148

PARTIES:

RE APPLICATION BY GEOFFREY JAMES BIRD

FILE NO/S:

BS No 4585 of 2018

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

12 June 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 December 2018

JUDGE:

Brown J

ORDER:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS – VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS AND PROCEEDINGS – where the applicant was declared a vexatious litigant – where the applicant seeks leave to set aside a vexatious proceedings order made against him – whether the proposed application is a vexatious proceeding

Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 (Qld), s 3, s 7, s 11, s 12 Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld), s 11, s 12, s 16

Conde v Gilfoyle [2010] QCA 109, applied

Kay v Attorney-General (2002) 2 VR 436, cited

Lohe v Bird [2004] QSC 23, considered

Re Application by Geoffrey James Bird [2015] QSC 100, cited

COUNSEL:

Applicant appeared in person

SOLICITORS:

Applicant appeared in person

1. Mr Bird applies for leave to issue an originating application to set aside the vexatious proceedings order made against him on 27 February 2004.[1] I have in a separate decision considered the question of whether leave is required for such an application under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld) (the 2005 Act) and determined that leave is required.[2]

   [1]     Lohe v Bird [2004] QSC 23. Mr Bird was in that judgment declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to s 3 of the Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 (Qld). The order continues in force under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld), s 16.

   [2]     Crown Solicitor v Bird [2019] QSC 147.

2. Justice Boddice ordered on 21 September 2018 that if it was determined leave was required, paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Originating Application were to continue and be treated as if commenced as an application for leave pursuant to s 11(2) of the 2005 Act.

3. In this application I must consider whether Mr Bird has established a basis upon which leave should be granted in order for him to issue an application to set aside the vexatious proceedings order.

   The vexatious proceedings order

4. In the decision declaring Mr Bird to be a vexatious litigant,[3] McMurdo J in his reasons for judgment considered:

   (a)A judicial review decision of the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) to appoint M’s father as guardian and administrator of M in 2001;

   (b)A notice of appeal against a decision of the Tribunal in 2002, in relation to which his Honour noted the inevitable outcome of the appeal was avoided by M’s father informing the Court that he wished to be relieved of his appointments, such that the appeal was allowed by Fryberg J, even though it never determined on its merits, and remitted back to the Tribunal;[4]

   (c)Two appeals from the 2002 decision of Fryberg J which were dismissed by the Court of Appeal in 2003 and found to be “entirely without merits”;[5]

   (d)A…