Re Klement

[2014] VSC 364

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL & EQUITY DIVISION

PRACTICE COURT

S CI  

IN THE MATTER of an application by Jiri Klement for a direction under Rule 27.06(3) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005

JIRI KLEMENT	Proposed Plaintiff
v
PETER JAMES RANDLES	Proposed Defendant

---

JUDGE:	ALMOND J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	Not applicable.  Determined on the papers.
DATE OF RULING:	4 August 2014
MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Klement
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 364

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Unrepresented litigant – Refusal by Prothonotary to seal document as originating process – Proposed plaintiff seeking direction to Prothonotary to accept document – Document irregular in form – Application refused ­– No direction given to Prothonotary to seal document – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 rule 27.06.

HIS HONOUR:

1. On 22 July 2014, the proposed plaintiff, Jiri Klement, sought to file with the Prothonotary a mainly handwritten document described as an originating motion with a heading which includes the words “Commercial & Inequity Division”.  On 22July 2014, the Prothonotary (via a Deputy Prothonotary) refused to seal or accept the document for filing, having regard to its form and content.

1. Mr Klement has sought a direction from the Court under Rule 27.06(3) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) (SCR) that the Prothonotary accept the document for filing in circumstances where the Prothonotary has refused to do so.

1. It is plain that the document is irregular in form. It fails to comply with Rule 27.03(3) of the SCR, which provides that the text shall be “clear, sharp, legible and permanent”. The text is neither clear nor sharp and is barely legible.

1. The document is also difficult to understand. It contains commentary or submissions, which are wholly inappropriate for inclusion in an originating motion; There is no suggestion that the nature of the document renders compliance with the Rules impracticable (Rule 27.01 of SCR).

1. Mr Klement has a history of filing such documents in this Court. In particular I refer to Re Klement [2011] VSCA 40 (Maxwell P and Buchanan JA) and Re Klement [2013] VSC 683, especially [35] (Cavanough J). This causes unnecessary inconvenience to the Prothonotary and Registry staff.

1. Although it is difficult to clearly discern the relief sought, the proposed claim appears to be the same or a variant of a claim previously made unsuccessfully by Mr Klement to an entitlement to provision of capital out of his late mother’s estate sufficient to enable the construction of a house on vacant land in Kalorama.[1]  Accordingly, the proposed claim may well be an abuse of process. In the circumstances, precision in identifying the nature of any claim and the relief or remedy sought will be especially important (SCR 5.05). Granting Mr Klement an indulgence by relieving him from compliance with the Rules would not achieve that end.  Allowing a document in this form to be sealed as an originating process would also be oppressive to the proposed defendant, Mr Randles.

   [1]Re Klement [2013] VSC 683 [9], [14] and [15].

1. I decline to direct the Prothonotary to seal the document as an originating process or to accept the document for filing.