Re Application by Geoffrey James Bird - [2015] QSC 100

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Re Application by Geoffrey James Bird [2015] QSC 100

PARTIES:

RE APPLICATION BY GEOFFREY JAMES BIRD

FILE NO/S:

1987 of 2015

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 April 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 April 2015

JUDGE:

Martin 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 institute a proceeding against the Public Guardian and others for a writ of habeas corpus and other matters in respect of and on behalf of another person – whether the proposed application is a vexatious proceeding

Guardianship and Administration Act 2000, s 119
Vexatious Litigants Act 1981, s 3
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005, s 11, s 12, s 16

Ex parte Persse [1828] 1 Molloy 219

Lohe v Bird [2004] QSC 023

COUNSEL:

Applicant appeared in person

SOLICITORS:

Applicant appeared in person

On 27 February 2004 the applicant was declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to s 3 of the Vexatious Litigants Act 1981.[1]
[1] Lohe v Bird [2004] QSC 023.
The effect of that order is preserved by s 16 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (“the Act”). As a result, the applicant must, if he wishes to institute a proceeding, apply to the court for leave under s 11 of the Act. The applicant seeks such leave.
The Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005
The relevant parts of the Act for the purposes of this application are:

11 Application for leave to institute a proceeding
(1) This section applies to a person (the applicant) who is—
(a) subject to a vexatious proceedings order prohibiting the person from instituting proceedings, or proceedings of a particular type, in Queensland; or
(b) acting in concert with another person who is subject to an order mentioned in paragraph (a).

(2)     The applicant may apply to the Court for leave to institute a proceeding that is subject to the order.
(3)     The applicant must file an affidavit with the application that—
(a) lists all occasions on which the applicant has applied for leave under—
(i)      this section; or
(ii) before the commencement of this section, the Vexatious Litigants Act 1981, section 8 or 9; and

(b) lists all other proceedings the applicant has instituted in Australia, including proceedings instituted before the commencement of this section; and
(c) discloses all facts material to the application, whether supporting or adverse to the application, that are known to the applicant.

(4) The applicant must not serve a copy of the application or affidavit on any person unless—
(a)an order is made under section 13(1)(a); and
(b) the copy is served in accordance with the order.

(5)     The Court may dispose of the application by—
(a) dismissing the application under section 12; or
(b)     granting the application under section 13.
(6)     The applicant may not appeal from a decision disposing of the application.

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 Re Application by Geoffrey James Bird

Details

AGLC: Re Application by Geoffrey James Bird [2015] QSC 100
Case: [2015] QSC 100
Decision Date: 30 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Geoffrey James Bird has been declared a vexatious litigant and seeks leave to institute a proceeding against the Public Guardian and others for a writ of habeas corpus and other matters in respect of and on behalf of another person. The court must determine whether the proposed application is vexatious. The court held that the Ex parte Persse authority cited by Mr Bird is outdated and that his application lacks standing as two tribunals have already determined that his actions are contrary to the interests of the other person. Additionally, earlier proceedings have held that Mr Bird is not the other person's attorney, and no appeal was brought from that decision. The application is fanciful and the proposed proceeding would be vexatious. The application is refused.

The court considered the arguments presented by Mr Bird, which were based on grounds that could not even be described as tenuous. The relief sought and the arguments advanced were fanciful, and the proposed application would be vexatious. The application was refused, and no leave was granted to institute the proceeding. The court concluded that the proposed application would be vexatious and that Mr Bird did not have the standing to bring it. The application is dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application refused.

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

Ex parte Persse is not authority for the proposition advanced by Mr Bird. Even if it was, then it has been overtaken by the many authoritative decisions since then relating to the capacity of medical practitioners to give expert opinions. Conclusion Mr Bird does not have the standing to bring this application. The material which he has exhibited to his affidavit shows that two tribunals have decided that he is acting in a way contrary to the interests of Ms Rickleman. Further, it has been held in earlier proceedings that he is not Ms Rickleman’s attorney and no appeal was brought from that decision. On the material available, that finding is well supported. Even if he had the authority to bring such an application he is seeking orders with respect to decisions for which the appeal periods have expired. No grounds were advanced for giving leave to appeal out of time. Mr Bird did not identify any reasonable grounds for his application. Much of what he wants to argue is based on grounds which could not even be described as tenuous. The relief sought and the arguments advanced are fanciful. The proposed application would be vexatious. The application is refused.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Re Application by Geoffrey James Bird [2015] QSC 100
PARTIES:	RE APPLICATION BY GEOFFREY JAMES BIRD
FILE NO/S:	1987 of 2015
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	30 April 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 April 2015
JUDGE:	Martin 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 institute a proceeding against the Public Guardian and others for a writ of habeas corpus and other matters in respect of and on behalf of another person – whether the proposed application is a vexatious proceeding Guardianship and Administration Act 2000, s 119 Vexatious Litigants Act 1981, s 3 Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005, s 11, s 12, s 16 Ex parte Persse [1828] 1 Molloy 219 Lohe v Bird [2004] QSC 023
COUNSEL:	Applicant appeared in person
SOLICITORS:	Applicant appeared in person