SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Rowe v Emmanuel College [2015] QSC 3
PARTIES:
CHAD EVERETT ROWE
(applicant)
v
EMMANUEL COLLEGE
ACN 010 563 256
(respondent)FILE NO/S:
9507 of 2014
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
16 January 2015
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
22 October 2014
JUDGE:
Martin J
ORDER:
Application dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS – VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS AND PROCEEDINGS – where the applicant gave an undertaking that he would not institute particular proceedings without bringing an application for leave as if he were subject to a vexatious proceedings order under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 – where this proceeding is such an application – whether the applicant has complied with the requirements of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005, s 11(3)
COUNSEL:
Applicant in person
SOLICITORS:
Applicant in person
On 15 July 2013 Mr Rowe gave an undertaking to the Court that he would not institute any proceeding in Queensland against Emmanuel College or any director or employee of Emmanuel College (in that person’s capacity as such) without bringing an application for leave to the court to institute the proceeding, as if he were subject to a vexatious proceedings order under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 prohibiting him from instituting proceedings in Queensland against the first applicant or any director or employee of the first applicant.
The circumstances giving rise to the need for him to make such an application has been dealt with in my reasons in Rowe v Emmanuel College & Anor [2015] QSC 2. In this application Mr Rowe seeks leave to file an appeal to the Court of Appeal to set aside orders made by Atkinson J on 29 September 2014 in Emmanuel College v Rowe [2014] QSC 238. In that proceeding, Atkinson J:
(a) held that the respondent had committed contempt of court by breaching certain orders of the court,
(b) ordered that Mr Rowe be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment wholly suspended for a period of three years, and
(c) ordered that he pay the applicant’s costs on an indemnity basis.
In support of his application for leave to commence an appeal, Mr Rowe has filed an affidavit purportedly in compliance with s 11(3) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005.
The affidavit relied upon by Mr Rowe is relevantly identical to the affidavit upon which he relied in the other matter. It follows that this application must be dismissed for the same reasons given in the other matter.
The application is dismissed.
- AGLC
- Rowe v Emmanuel College [2015] QSC 3
- Case
- [2015] QSC 3
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether Mr. Rowe had complied with the requirements of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 by bringing this application for leave. The court needed to determine if Mr. Rowe's actions adhered to the procedural obligations set out in the Act. The court examined the nature of Mr. Rowe's undertaking, the specifics of the intended proceedings, and the conditions of the Act. The court also considered the history of Mr. Rowe's previous litigation against Emmanuel College, which had led to the imposition of the undertaking.
In its reasoning, the court found that Mr. Rowe had not strictly complied with the requirements of the Act. Although he had made an application for leave, the court held that the application did not fully align with the procedural obligations set out in the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005. Consequently, the court concluded that Mr. Rowe had not satisfied the necessary conditions to bring the intended proceedings against Emmanuel College. The court dismissed the application, reinforcing the importance of adhering to the terms of any court-imposed undertakings and the conditions of the Act.
The final order of the court was to dismiss the application. Mr. Rowe was not granted leave to institute the proceedings against Emmanuel College. This decision underscores the importance of compliance with procedural requirements when dealing with vexatious litigants and the need to follow the specific conditions outlined in the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application dismissed.
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.