Rowe v Emmanuel College - [2015] QSC 2

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Rowe v Emmanuel College & Anor [2015] QSC 2

PARTIES:

CHAD EVERETT ROWE
(applicant)
v
EMMANUEL COLLEGE
ACN 010 563 256
(first respondent)
ALISON JANE SCHULTZ
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

9508 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.

Mr Rowe has commenced a number of matters. Most are against Emmanuel College and Ms Schultz. Ms Schultz is Mr Rowe’s former wife. Those matters have included applications in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, applications to the Federal Circuit Court, an application for leave to appeal filed in the Federal Court of Australia, an appeal to the Federal Court of Australia, a complaint to the Anti-discrimination Commission which was referred to QCAT, an application in this Court in which Mr Rowe sought damages in the sum of $3.55 million, an appeal to the Court of Appeal and miscellaneous applications for leave to appeal.

On 13 November 2013 Mr Rowe entered into a deed with Emmanuel College and Ms Schultz which was designed to bring all the matters between the parties to an end.

Mr Rowe now seeks leave to institute a proceeding against the respondents in which he says that Emmanuel College has failed to comply with an obligation it has under the deed to make available to Mr Rowe copies of all relevant documents and information pertaining to his daughter. He says that that was a breach of the deed. On 20 November 2013 Mr Rowe sent a “Notice to Remedy Breach” to Emmanuel College. On 28 November 2013 he purported to terminate the deed of settlement for “serious breach of the deed”.

In this application Mr Rowe wishes to commence a matter in which he would seek an order that the order of Dalton J made on 21 November 2013 in BS5853 of 2013 as extended by the…

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 Rowe v Emmanuel College

Details

AGLC: Rowe v Emmanuel College [2015] QSC 2
Case: [2015] QSC 2
Decision Date: 16 January 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case were Rowe and Emmanuel College. The nature of the dispute was whether Rowe had complied with the requirements of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 by bringing an application for leave to institute proceedings against Emmanuel College. The court involved was the Supreme Court of Victoria. The legal issues the court had to decide were whether Rowe had followed the correct procedural steps as stipulated under the Act, and whether he had genuinely attempted to comply with the requirements of the Act. The court needed to determine if Rowe's actions constituted compliance with the Act or if they amounted to circumvention of the statutory requirements.

The court examined the circumstances under which Rowe had made his undertaking and the manner in which he had sought leave to proceed with the current application. It assessed whether Rowe's actions were bona fide attempts to comply with the Act or if they were attempts to bypass the restrictions imposed by the Act. In reaching its decision, the court considered the nature of the undertaking given by Rowe and the procedural steps he had followed in bringing the application. Ultimately, the court found that Rowe had not genuinely complied with the Act and had instead attempted to circumvent its requirements. As a result, the court dismissed the application and ruled that Rowe had not satisfied the statutory conditions for bringing the proceedings against Emmanuel College.

The final orders of the court were that the application brought by Rowe was dismissed. The court found that Rowe had not complied with the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 by bringing the application without seeking leave as required. Consequently, Rowe was not permitted to proceed with the intended litigation against Emmanuel College. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory requirements when seeking to institute legal proceedings, especially for those identified as vexatious litigants.

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.

CITATION:	Rowe v Emmanuel College & Anor [2015] QSC 2
PARTIES:	CHAD EVERETT ROWE (applicant) v EMMANUEL COLLEGE ACN 010 563 256 (first respondent) ALISON JANE SCHULTZ (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	9508 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