Rouvinetis v Pollack - [2014] NSWSC 266

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rouvinetis v Pollack [2014] NSWSC 266
Hearing dates: In chambers
Decision date: 18 March 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Schmidt J
Decision:
Application for leave to commence proceedings pursuant to s 14 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act2008 dismissed.

Catchwords: PROCEDURE - vexatious litigant - application for leave to commence proceedings pursuant to s 14 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 - application dismissed
Legislation Cited: Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Attorney General v Rouvinetis [2012] NSWSC 328
Rouvinetis v Knoll [2011] NSWSC 1352
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Evangelos Rouvinetis (Plaintiff)
Aviv Pollack (First Defendant)
Brian Wilmott (Second Defendant)
Darren Chai (Third Defendant)
Daniel Lander (Fourth Defendant)
David Narounsky (Fifth Defendant)
Representation: Mr E Rouvinetis (unrepresented)

File Number(s): 2014/26407
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

On 28 January 2014 the plaintiff Evangelos Rouvinetis, filed a statement of claim and an affidavit sworn on 16 January 2014, which at [35] states:

"With this affidavit the deponent seeks leave, to raise a claim against the five assaults that, no law protects volunteers of torts."

Mr Rouvinetis is a vexatious litigant subject to orders made under s 8(7) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act2008 (NSW) in Attorney General v Rouvinetis [2012] NSWSC 328. There Adams J ordered at [173]:

"1. The defendant is prohibited from instituting proceedings in any tribunal or court in New South Wales without leave of this Court.

2. All of the proceedings in New South Wales already instituted by the defendant, with the exception of an appeal, if any, from the decision in Rouvinetis v Knoll [2011] NSWSC 1352 are stayed."

One of the consequences of these orders is that Mr Rouvinetis may not institute any proceedings in this Court, without obtaining prior leave in accordance with the procedures established by the Act. Section 14(3) provides that:

"14 Application for leave to institute proceedings

(1) This section applies to a person (the applicant) who is:

(a) subject to a vexatious proceedings order prohibiting the person from instituting proceedings, or

(b) acting in concert with another person who is subject to an order referred to in paragraph (a).

(2) The applicant may apply to an appropriate authorised court for leave to institute proceedings that the order would otherwise prohibit the person from instituting.

(3) The applicant must file an affidavit with the application that:

(a) lists all occasions on which the applicant has applied for leave:

(i) under this section, or

(ii) before the commencement of this section-as required by an order under section 70 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 or section 84 of the Supreme Court Act 1970, and

(b) lists all other proceedings the applicant has instituted in Australia, including proceedings instituted before the commencement of this section, and

(c) discloses all facts material to the application, whether supporting or adverse to the application, that are known to the applicant.

(4) The applicant must not serve a copy of the application or affidavit on…

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.

Continue reading Rouvinetis v Pollack

Details

AGLC: Rouvinetis v Pollack [2014] NSWSC 266
Case: [2014] NSWSC 266
Decision Date: 18 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an application brought by the applicant, Rouvinetis, under section 14 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 against the respondent, Pollack. Rouvinetis sought leave to commence legal proceedings against Pollack. The application was brought in the Supreme Court of Queensland, the jurisdiction of which was confirmed by the parties to be appropriate. The nature of the dispute centred around Rouvinetis' desire to initiate legal action against Pollack, which the respondent opposed on the basis that Rouvinetis was a vexatious litigant as defined by the Vexatious Proceedings Act.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Rouvinetis qualified as a vexatious litigant under the terms of the Act. A secondary issue was whether Rouvinetis should be granted leave to commence the proceedings against Pollack, despite the opposition based on the vexatious litigant designation. The court had to determine whether the criteria for a vexatious litigant, as outlined in the Act, were met by Rouvinetis and whether these criteria should preclude the applicant from bringing further proceedings against Pollack.

In dismissing the application, the court concluded that Rouvinetis did meet the criteria for a vexatious litigant under the Act. The court found that Rouvinetis had a history of instituting and pursuing proceedings that were frivolous, oppressive, or not in the public interest. The court emphasised that the applicant's past legal actions were repetitive and lacked a reasonable prospect of success. Given this determination, the court ruled that Rouvinetis was not entitled to leave to commence proceedings against Pollack. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and Rouvinetis was denied permission to bring the proceedings against the respondent.

Orders