Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: REGISTRAR, COURT OF APPEAL v CRAVEN [1994] NSWCA 260 Decision date: 07 December 1994
See Attachment (PDF)
Details
- AGLC
- Registrar, Court of Appeal v Craven [1994] NSWCA 260
- Case
- [1994] NSWCA 260
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Registrar of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales sought to strike out an appeal by Mr. Craven on the grounds that it was frivolous and vexatious, and an abuse of process. Mr. Craven had been convicted of certain offences and sentenced by the District Court. He had previously sought to appeal his conviction and sentence, but this appeal was dismissed. He then sought to appeal the dismissal of his first appeal, which the Registrar argued was an abuse of process.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether Mr. Craven's second appeal was an abuse of process and, if so, whether it should be struck out. Specifically, the court had to consider the principles governing the striking out of appeals as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and whether the circumstances of this case met those criteria.
The Court of Appeal, comprising Gleeson CJ, Kirby P, and Handley JA, held that the appeal was indeed an abuse of process. The court reasoned that allowing a party to repeatedly appeal the dismissal of a previous appeal, without any new grounds or substantial changes in circumstances, would lead to an unacceptable burden on the court system and an injustice to the respondent. The court applied the principle that an abuse of process occurs when litigation is conducted in a way that is contrary to the public interest in the administration of justice, and that the court has an inherent power to prevent such abuses.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal ordered that Mr. Craven's appeal be struck out as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether Mr. Craven's second appeal was an abuse of process and, if so, whether it should be struck out. Specifically, the court had to consider the principles governing the striking out of appeals as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and whether the circumstances of this case met those criteria.
The Court of Appeal, comprising Gleeson CJ, Kirby P, and Handley JA, held that the appeal was indeed an abuse of process. The court reasoned that allowing a party to repeatedly appeal the dismissal of a previous appeal, without any new grounds or substantial changes in circumstances, would lead to an unacceptable burden on the court system and an injustice to the respondent. The court applied the principle that an abuse of process occurs when litigation is conducted in a way that is contrary to the public interest in the administration of justice, and that the court has an inherent power to prevent such abuses.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal ordered that Mr. Craven's appeal be struck out as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.