Rowe v Emmanuel College

The case of Rowe v Emmanuel College involved the applicant, Mr Rowe, a solicitor, seeking leave to file an application to set aside previous orders and undertakings made by the court. The dispute arose from a Deed of Settlement and subsequent court orders, which Mr Rowe sought to challenge. The court was required to determine whether Mr Rowe had disclosed all facts material to his application for leave to institute proceedings, as required by the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld), and whether the application should be dismissed under that Act.

The court found that Mr Rowe had not disclosed all facts material to his application for leave. It was clear that he intended to challenge the 2013 Orders made by Dalton J and Byrne SJA, and the 2014 Orders made by Atkinson J. The court concluded that Mr Rowe’s application did not seek to appeal the orders but to set them aside, aiming to argue that the college had failed in its obligations under the Deed of Settlement and that the Deed of Settlement had been terminated. The court noted that Mr Rowe had not sought to appeal the orders but wished to commence new proceedings to set them aside.

The court ultimately determined that Mr Rowe had not fully disclosed the material facts of his application. The Vexatious Proceedings Act requires that all relevant facts be disclosed to the court. The court held that Mr Rowe’s application did not meet this requirement and dismissed the application under the Act. Consequently, Mr Rowe was not granted leave to file the proposed application to set aside the previous orders and undertakings.

The court made an order dismissing the application filed on 19 January 2015. Mr Rowe was not granted leave to institute the proceedings he sought to bring, effectively preventing him from challenging the previous court orders through a new application.