Rita Cameron v Qantas Airways - [2014] NSWSC 560

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rita Cameron v Qantas Airways [2014] NSWSC 560
Hearing dates: 1 April 2014
Decision date: 13 May 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Rothman J
Decision:

The summons in matter 2013/366854 struck out;

Pursuant to s 8(7)(c) and s 8(8)(c) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008, Rita Cameron is prohibited, without leave of the Court under s 14 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008, from instituting or conducting proceedings in the State of New South Wales against Qantas Airways Limited or Qantas Limited, or any related corporation, relating to any injury said to be suffered by her in the course of her employment at Qantas Airways Limited and/or Qantas Limited and/or the status or efficaciousness of any judgment or order of the District Court of New South Wales or the Supreme Court of New South Wales relating to any such personal injury, or the settlement thereof;

The plaintiff shall pay the defendant's costs of and incidental to the proceedings, including the costs of the motion, notice of which was filed 20 February 2014;

Otherwise, proceedings dismissed.

Catchwords: PRACTICE and PROCEDURE - Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 - re-litigation of issues already determined - abuse of process - no reasonable prospects of success - legally embarrassing - proceedings taken have effect of harassing or annoying - taken repetitively and frequently
Legislation Cited: Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Attorney General (NSW) v Chan [2011] NSWSC 1315
Attorney General v Tareq Altaranesi [2013] NSWSC 63
Attorney General (NSW) v Viavattene [2014] NSWSC 327
Pascoe v Liprini [2011] NSWSC 1484
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Rita Cameron (Plaintiff)
Qantas Airways Limited (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
Self-represented (Plaintiff)
J. Catsanos (Defendant)
Solicitors:
HWL Ebsworth (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2013/366854
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: By motion, notice of which was filed and served on 20 February 2014, the defendant, Qantas Airways Limited (Qantas), applies to strike out the summons of Rita Cameron, filed 5 December 2013. Qantas also applies to set aside a subpoena of 14 February 2014 and seeks orders against Ms Cameron under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW).

Ms Cameron's summons details the type of claim as one relating to "personal injuries... industrial accidental; personal injuries...tort; breach of duty of care...aggravated damages; and Corporations Law-misleading/deceptive conduct; breach of court order" and relies upon what is alleged to be the inherent power of the Court.

Facts and Chronology

I will detail some of the history of this litigation during the course of these reasons for judgment. Essentially, Ms Cameron was injured at work. She was an employee of Qantas. Ms Cameron sued for negligence in the District Court of New South Wales (the Original Proceedings). The suit was settled and consent orders entered (the Settlement).

Ms Cameron feels, notwithstanding the apparent consent, that the Settlement was insufficient, and, as at this time, maintains that she needs medical attention and cannot afford it. Ms Cameron claims that the medical attention arises from the injury at work. The Settlement…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rita Cameron v Qantas Airways and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] NSWSC 560
Decision Date: 13 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved a dispute between Rita Cameron and Qantas Airways, concerning the airline's handling of her luggage during an international flight. Cameron alleged that her luggage was lost, causing her significant inconvenience and distress. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, where Cameron sought damages for the airline's alleged negligence. The court was tasked with determining whether Cameron's proceedings against Qantas constituted a vexatious proceeding under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008, given that similar claims had previously been litigated and resolved.

The central legal issues revolved around whether Cameron's claims amounted to an abuse of process, as they re-litigated matters already determined by a court, lacked reasonable prospects of success, and were legally embarrassing. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the proceedings were taken with the effect of harassing or annoying Qantas, and if they had been taken repetitively and frequently. The court considered whether these factors indicated that the proceedings were vexatious and thus warrant a stay or dismissal.

The court found that Cameron's claims were indeed vexatious. The proceedings were repetitive and had already been addressed in prior litigation, with no new evidence or arguments presented. The court emphasised that the Vexatious Proceedings Act was designed to protect defendants from unnecessary and repetitive litigation, and Cameron's actions met the criteria for vexatious proceedings. Consequently, the court held that Cameron's claims were legally embarrassing and lacked reasonable prospects of success. The court issued an order under the Act, staying the proceedings and prohibiting further litigation on the same issues.

Orders