Re Skyring

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Re Skyring [2014] QSC 89

PARTIES:

ALAN GEORGE SKYRING

(Applicant)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 3660 of 2014

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

28 April 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 April 2014

JUDGE:

Atkinson J

ORDERS:

1. The proceeding is a vexatious proceeding, and I dismiss the application pursuant to s 12(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld).

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS – VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS AND PROCEEDINGS – where the applicant has been declared a
vexatious litigant – where the applicant seeks leave to
institute proceedings under section 11 of the Vexatious

Litigants Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld) – where applications for leave were denied on at least four prior occasions - whether the applicant should be granted leave to institute proceedings

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

Re: Skyring [2013] QSC 197
Re: Skyring [2014] QSC 028
Re: Skyring [2014] QSC 061

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf

HER HONOUR: The applicant, Alan George Skyring, has been declared a litigant who requires leave to commence an application under s11 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005. Because of that, he has brought many applications in this court for leave. The origin of the present series of applications appears to have been an order made by Magistrate Springer on 18 June 2013, setting down a matter for trial, regarding a speeding ticket that Mr Skyring had been given for driving his car at 62 kilometres per hour in a zone signed as having a 50 kilometre per hour speed limit. Through that pretext, Mr Skyring applies for leave to re-litigate matters which have been endlessly litigated in this and other courts.

Applications for leave for him to commence these proceedings have been denied on no fewer than four occasions, and perhaps many more, since he first commenced this particular lot of attempts to litigate. Comprehensive reasons have been given by Justice Mullins on 1 August 2013,[1] by Justice Peter Lyons on 13 February 2014,[2] by Justice Alan Wilson on 21 May 2014,[3] and, Mr Skyring tells me, also by Justice Jackson.

[1] See Re: Skyring [2013] QSC 197.

[2] See Re:Skyring [2014] QSC 028.

[3] See Re:Skyring [2014] QSC 061.

Mr Skyring has been completely unable to articulate to me anything which makes this application any different from any application previously brought by him. Accordingly, in my view, the proceeding is a vexatious proceeding, and I dismiss the application pursuant to s 12(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005.
______________________

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an individual, referred to as the applicant, who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant. The applicant sought leave to institute proceedings under section 11 of the Vexatious Litigants Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld). This application was made despite the fact that the applicant had been denied leave on at least four prior occasions. The court was required to determine whether the applicant should be granted leave to institute proceedings in light of the previous denials and the applicant's status as a vexatious litigant.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant, having been previously denied leave to institute proceedings on multiple occasions and being declared a vexatious litigant, should still be granted leave to institute further proceedings. The court needed to weigh the statutory framework provided by the Vexatious Litigants Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld) against the principle of ensuring that vexatious litigants do not unduly burden the court system. The court considered the history of the applicant's litigation, including the frequency and nature of previous applications, to determine if the applicant's conduct warranted a further denial of leave.

The court found that the applicant's history of vexatious litigation and the previous denials of leave to institute proceedings justified the conclusion that the proceeding was vexatious. The court held that granting the applicant leave to institute further proceedings would likely result in the continuation of vexatious litigation, which would be detrimental to the efficient functioning of the court system. Consequently, the court dismissed the application pursuant to section 12(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld), affirming that the proceeding was vexatious and that the applicant was not entitled to leave to institute further proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	Re Skyring [2014] QSC 89
PARTIES:	ALAN GEORGE SKYRING (Applicant)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 3660 of 2014
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	28 April 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 April 2014
JUDGE:	Atkinson J
ORDERS:	*1. The proceeding is a vexatious proceeding, and I dismiss the application pursuant to s 12(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005* (Qld).**
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS – VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS AND PROCEEDINGS – where the applicant has been declared a vexatious litigant – where the applicant seeks leave to institute proceedings under section 11 of the Vexatious Litigants Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld) – where applications for leave were denied on at least four prior occasions - whether the applicant should be granted leave to institute proceedings Vexatious Litigants Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld), s 11, s 12(1)(b) Re: Skyring [2013] QSC 197 Re: Skyring [2014] QSC 028 Re: Skyring [2014] QSC 061
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf