Re Skyring

[1999] QCA 460

99.460

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P

WILLIAMS J

Appeal No 9356 of 1999

ALAN GEORGE SKYRING Applicant (Applicant)

BRISBANE
..DATE 03/11/99
031199 T14/RAG23 M/T COA265/99
THE PRESIDENT: The applicant was declared a vexatious
litigant under section 3 of the Vexatious Litigants Act
1981, "the Act", by White J on 5 April 1995. In 1997 Muir
J refused the applicant's application under section 4 of
the Act to revoke the order made by White J, noting that
the applicant faced the problem that White J's declaration
had been the subject of an unsuccessful appeal to the
Court of Appeal. Muir J noted:

"Express reference was made in the reasons for
judgment of Davies JA in the Court of Appeal to Her
Honour's reasons and he expressed agreement with
those reasons. No (sic) other members of the Court

agreed."

In fact in the judgment delivered in Skyring v. Kenneth
Michael O'Shea, Crown Solicitor, CA No 56 of 1995, 7

August 1995, Davies JA said:

"The same is true of the second appeal before this
Court which is against an order declaring Mr Skyring
to be a vexatious litigant. I have carefully looked
at the reasons of the learned Judge who made the
order and agree with her entirely. Time has long
past when it is necessary to set out and reject once
again the arguments of this appellant. The appeal in

my view must be dismissed."

Moynihan and Fryberg JJ clearly and unequivocally
expressed their agreement with the presiding Judge.

On 23 September 1999 the applicant then sought yet again to reopen the application before Muir J to have the declaration made by White J revoked on a number of bases.

The first was that the judgment from the decision of

031199 T14/RAG23 M/T COA265/99
White J was not upheld on appeal, because of the
typographical error in Muir J's 1997 reasons for judgment.

In 1999 Muir J, hardly surprisingly, confirmed the words in his 1997 reasons were a typographical error and should read, "The other members of the Court agreed."

The applicant also submitted that in the Court of Appeal
as the two appeals, Skyring v. ANZ Banking Group Limited,
CA No 26 of 1995, and Skyring v. Kenneth Michael O'Shea,
CA No 56 of 1995, were heard and judgment was given in
respect of both appeals together, there was an ambiguity
in the use of the expression by Moynihan and Fryberg JJ,

"I agree."

It is clear there was no such ambiguity; the Court of
Appeal was unanimous in its decision to dismiss the
appeal, Skyring v. Kenneth Michael O'Shea, CA No 56 of

1995, with costs, and to strike out CA No 26 of 1995.

The other arguments put forward by the applicant below
were yet another attempt to raise those same arguments
which have been consistently held by this Court and by the
High Court of Australia to be without merit and which
resulted in
White J's declaration under section 4 of the Act. Muir J

rightly refused the applicant's application.

I have perused the material filed by the applicant in this
case. The applicant has failed to show any error on the
031199 T14/RAG23 M/T COA265/99
part of the learned Judge below or to demonstrate any
merit in his application for leave to appeal. I would
dismiss the application.
WILLIAMS J: I have perused all the material the applicant
has placed before the Court and I can find therein nothing
to justify the revocation of the declaration made by White
J on 5 April 1995 pursuant to the Vexatious Litigants Act

1981. I agree with the order proposed by the President.

THE PRESIDENT: The order is the application is dismissed.

-----