Re: Gunter - [2015] QSC 358

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Re: Gunter [2015] QSC 358

PARTIES:

RICHARD STEPHEN GUNTER

(applicant)

FILE NO:

SC No 11799 of 2015

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

20 November 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 November 2015

JUDGE:

Atkinson J

ORDER:

Application dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS – VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS AND PROCEEDINGS – where the applicant filed an application for leave to institute a proceeding in relation to an appeal filed in the Court of Appeal – where the material before the judge did not indicate the appeal had any prospects of success if the application were allowed – where the arguments raised appeared to be substantially the same as those that led to the applicant’s being declared a vexatious litigant – whether the application for leave to institute a proceeding should be allowed

Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 (Qld) s 8, s 9

Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld) s 11(2), s 11(3), s 12(1)(b)

Lohe v Gunter [2003] QSC 150 cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared for himself

ATKINSON J: This is a hearing of an originating application filed by Richard Stephen Gunter seeking leave of the court, pursuant to section 11(2) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the Act’), to institute an appeal and associated application in the Queensland Court of Appeal. This matter is governed by the Act and a Practice Direction issued under that Act, Practice Direction 5 of 2010.
The applicant was declared to be a vexatious litigant on 16 April 2003 in a judgment of this court in the matter of Lohe v Gunter.[1] There, Holmes J, as her Honour then was, set out in great detail the reasons why her Honour made the declaration that the respondent is a vexatious litigant.
[1] [2003] QSC 150.
Such a litigant is required to make an application for leave to institute a proceeding in this court, which includes an application for leave to institute an appeal. Accordingly, Mr Gunter has, quite properly, filed an originating application seeking that leave. Subsection (3) of section 11 provides that, on such application:

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.

Accordingly, each of 3(a), (b) and (c) must be satisfied in the affidavit filed with the application.
The applicant has done his best, it appears, to list all occasions on which he has applied for leave under this section or under sections 8 or 9 of the Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 (Qld), and listed other proceedings that he has instituted in Australia,…

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: Gunter

Details

AGLC: Re: Gunter [2015] QSC 358
Case: [2015] QSC 358
Decision Date: 20 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re: Gunter involved an application by Gunter for leave to institute a proceeding in relation to an appeal filed in the Court of Appeal. The court was required to determine whether the application should be allowed, given the material presented did not indicate the appeal had any prospects of success. Furthermore, the arguments raised by Gunter appeared to be substantially the same as those that had previously led to his declaration as a vexatious litigant.

The court identified several legal issues that needed resolution. The primary issue was whether the applicant's history of vexatious litigation warranted the denial of the current application for leave. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the arguments presented in the current application were substantially the same as those previously rejected, which would support a finding of vexatiousness. The court also needed to consider the principles governing applications for leave to proceed with an appeal, particularly in the context of vexatious litigants.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the history of Gunter's litigation, noting that he had previously been declared a vexatious litigant. The arguments presented in the current application were found to be substantially similar to those that led to this declaration. The court concluded that allowing the application would likely result in further frivolous litigation. Consequently, the court dismissed the application, finding that it had no prospects of success and would serve to perpetuate vexatious litigation.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the application for leave to institute a proceeding. This decision was based on the applicant's history of vexatious litigation and the similarity of the current arguments to those previously rejected.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed.

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.

CITATION:	Re: Gunter [2015] QSC 358
PARTIES:	RICHARD STEPHEN GUNTER (applicant)
FILE NO:	SC No 11799 of 2015
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	20 November 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 November 2015
JUDGE:	Atkinson J
ORDER:	Application dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS – VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS AND PROCEEDINGS – where the applicant filed an application for leave to institute a proceeding in relation to an appeal filed in the Court of Appeal – where the material before the judge did not indicate the appeal had any prospects of success if the application were allowed – where the arguments raised appeared to be substantially the same as those that led to the applicant’s being declared a vexatious litigant – whether the application for leave to institute a proceeding should be allowed Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 (Qld) s 8, s 9 Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld) s 11(2), s 11(3), s 12(1)(b) Lohe v Gunter [2003] QSC 150 cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared for himself