Re Cameron - [1996] QCA 37

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1996] QCA 037
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
Brisbane	Appeal No.112 of 1995
[O'Shea v. Cameron]
BETWEEN:

KENNETH MICHAEL O'SHEA

(Applicant) Appellant

AND:

DONALD JAMES CAMERON

(Respondent) Respondent
Fitzgerald P. Pincus J.A. Mackenzie J.

Judgment delivered 05/03/1996

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, all concurring as to the orders made.

APPEAL ALLOWED WITH COSTS. THE RESPONDENT IS DECLARED TO BE A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT PURSUANT TO SECTION 3 OF THE VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS ACT 1981.

CATCHWORDS: GENERAL - Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 - interpretation - "instituted vexacious legal proceedings" - "frequently and without reasonable grounds" - respondent has commenced many similar proceedings in an attempt to relitigate a previously determined issue.

Counsel:	Mr J.D. McKenna for the appellant. The respondent appeared on his own behalf.
Solicitors:	Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions. The respondent appeared on his own behalf.
Hearing date:	13/2/96

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Brisbane	Appeal No.112 of 1995
Before	Fitzgerald P. Pincus J.A. Mackenzie J.

[O'Shea v. Cameron]

BETWEEN:

KENNETH MICHAEL O'SHEA

(Applicant) Appellant

AND:

DONALD JAMES CAMERON

(Respondent) Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - FITZGERALD P.

Judgment delivered 05/03/1996

This is an appeal by the then Crown Solicitor of Queensland against an order made by a Chamber

Judge on 16 May 1995 dismissing the appellant’s application that the respondent, Donald James

Cameron, be declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to s. 3 of the Vexatious Litigants Act 1981. As

her Honour noted, to make such a declaration, it was necessary for the court to be satisfied that Mr

Cameron “has frequently and without reasonable ground instituted vexatious legal proceedings”.

Sub-section 2(1) of the Act gives a wide meaning to “legal proceedings” and includes “any

proceeding taken in connection with any such legal proceedings pending before any court or

tribunal”. Her Honour held that, for the purposes of the Act, “legal proceedings” are limited to such

proceedings taken in any court or tribunal within the jurisdiction of the State of Queensland and,

although that conclusion was challenged in this Court, I am content to assume in Mr Cameron’s

favour, without deciding that her Honour was correct.
It is also necessary to decide what makes legal proceedings vexatious. Although there are

sometimes statutory indications, the broad test potentially concerns such factors as the legitimacy or

otherwise of the motives of the person against whom the order is sought, the existence or lack of

reasonable grounds for the claims sought to be made, repetition of similar allegations or arguments to

those which have already been rejected, compliance with or disregard of the court’s practices,

procedures and rulings, persistent attempts to use the court’s processes to circumvent its decisions

or other abuse of process, the wastage of public resources, and funds, and the harassment of those

who are the subject of the litigation which lacks reasonable basis: see, for example, Attorney-

General (N.S.W.) v. Wentworth (1988) 14 N.S.W.L.R. 481; Jones v. Skyring (1992)…

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 Cameron

Details

AGLC: Re Cameron [1996] QCA 37
Case: [1996] QCA 37
Decision Date: 5/03/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Cameron involved an appeal by the then Crown Solicitor of Queensland against an order made by a Chamber Judge, dismissing the appellant’s application to declare Donald James Cameron a vexatious litigant pursuant to Section 3 of the Vexatious Litigants Act 1981. The core issue in this appeal was whether the respondent had frequently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious legal proceedings. The court was required to determine the meaning of "legal proceedings" as defined in the Act and whether the respondent's actions constituted vexatious litigation under the statute.

The court found that the respondent had engaged in numerous unsuccessful legal proceedings against Westpac and its employees, stemming from his previous criminal convictions. These proceedings, which included writs for damages, complaints, and private prosecutions, were deemed to be without reasonable grounds and were frequently instituted. The court emphasized that vexatious litigation involves factors such as the legitimacy of the motives, the existence of reasonable grounds, repetition of similar claims, and the abuse of court processes. The court concluded that the respondent's actions met the criteria for being declared a vexatious litigant.

In its judgment, the Court allowed the appeal and declared Donald James Cameron a vexatious litigant, highlighting his persistent and unmeritorious litigation against Westpac and its employees. The court also noted that while the Vexatious Litigants Act pertains specifically to proceedings in Queensland courts, actions in other jurisdictions could be considered if they demonstrated a pattern of vexatious behavior. The court ordered that Cameron pay costs associated with the appeal.

Orders